Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Bulk Supplies (Cost)

Mr. Box: asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the Central Electricity Generating Board that it should curtail further increases in the cost of electricity supplies to the area boards.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): No, Sir.

Mr. Box: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the continued rise in the costs of the products and services of the nationalised industries is causing very grave concern to members of the general public, particularly to that section of the public who exist on small fixed incomes? Will my hon. Friend consider submitting the workings and whether an increase in price is required by a nationalised industry to, perhaps, the Monopolies Commission to see whether, in fact, some rise is justified?

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. I must remind my hon. Friend that the bulk supply tariff is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. The Board stated that the reason for the recent increase was the larger capital expenditure, heavy increases in running costs and increases in transmission costs. I do not think that I can help my hon. Friend.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the increase in the price of electricity compares favourably with increases in prices generally and that the Select Committee of this House

which reported on the electricity supply industry submitted the proposition that the consumers were getting very good value for money?

Mr. Peyton: I do not disagree.

Consultative Council, South Wales

Mr. Box: asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied with the present constitution of the electricity consultative council in South Wales; and what plans he has to strengthen it.

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir, and I would like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the work of its members.

Mr. Box: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply is rather a complacent one? Is he really satisfied that these consultative councils have sufficient power, and examine these rises sufficiently closely, to say, when an increase is passed on to the public, that it is entirely justified?

Mr. Peyton: I am in very close touch with these consultative councils and without in any way being complacent I am satisfied that they do a very useful job. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that all the members of these councils, except the chairmen, give their services for nothing and really do make a very useful contribution to the industry.

National Parks (Underground Supplies)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Power whether he is aware that the several area electricity boards are adopting different policies towards meeting the cost of placing supplies underground in the National Parks; and whether he will issue general directions to the area electricity boards to adopt a common policy towards this problem.

Mr. Peyton: The answer to the first part is "Yes"; to the second, "No"; this is a matter which is and should be within the discretion of boards to settle in the light of particular circumstances.

Mr. Turton: Arising from that reply, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that those who farm or live in National Parks in the area of the North Eastern Electricity Board are so penalised by prohibitive charges for taking the lines underground that often they cannot afford to have electricity, while in National


Parks in the areas of other boards the cost is spread over the whole area? Is not this quite contrary to the spirit of the Electricity Act, bearing in mind that those who get the advantage of these underground lines are not those who farm and live in National Parks, but those who farm and live outside and who visit the National Parks?

Mr. Peyton: I am, of course, aware of the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend has referred, but I very much regret that I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend wrote to him recently on the subject.

Mr. Turton: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter at an early opportunity.

Electricity Pylons, Dorset

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Power what objections he has received to the building in Dorset of the largest electricity pylons ever built in Great Britain.

Mr. Peyton: Objections were raised by Dorset County Council and a number of other bodies and individuals. The objections were considered at a public inquiry held at Dorchester in December, 1962, and January, 1963.

Mr. Digby: Is it not the fact that hose inquiries related to the route and not to the fact that the largest pylons ever were to be reserved for an exceptionally beautiful county, much more beautiful than a lot of the National Parks, and that the reasons for this are simply not understood? Why is it necessary that we should have larger pylons than anybody else?

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that Dorset has been in any way singled out for special treatment. The towers which carry this 400 kV line will be the same in Dorset as elsewhere. Everybody regrets the necessity for them, but it is difficult to produce a practical alternative.

Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that they will be larger than any previous pylons, as we have been informed locally by representatives of the board?

Mr. Peyton: The 400 kV line is itself a larger affair than we have had pre-

viously. The normal height of these towers is 165 ft. In some circumstances, they may go up to 195 or 215 ft. to give the necessary clearance.

Generating Capacity

Mr. Skeet: asked the Minister of Power the total electrical generating capacity of the Central Electricity Generating Board in June, 1964; how this compares with June, 1958; and what additional capacity is now under contract or construction.

Mr. Peyton: Total capacity in June, 1964, was 33,151 megawatts sent out and this was 10,553 megawatts greater than in June, 1958. An additional 28,990 megawatts of capacity is now under contract or construction.

Mr. Skeet: In welcoming the advance which these figures reveal, may I ask my hon. Friend what margin of capacity will be available in the coming winter as compared with last year? Will he indicate also the amount of spare capacity of oil-fired stations in the United Kingdom at the present time?

Mr. Peyton: The gross margins of plant in average cold spell weather are now slightly better. These figures, I must tell my hon. Friend, do not allow for plant out of commission. In 1963–64, the margin was 8·8 per cent. In 1964–65, it will be 9 per cent.

Mr. John Hall: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the increase in the oil-burning power stations adds a hazard to health by the increased discharge of sulphur dioxide in the air, which in conditions of fog affects both human lungs and buildings? Is anything being done to deal with this health hazard?

Mr. Peyton: Considerable research goes into this matter, on which, I believe I am right in saying, even medical opinion is divided. I remind my hon. Friend, however, that before consent is given to the construction of any power station, my right hon. Friend has to be satisfied that there is no risk to health.

Nuclear Capacity

Mr. Skeet: asked the Minister of Power how much generating capacity of the Central Electricity Generating


Board in June, 1964, was nuclear-powered; how this compares with June, 1958; and what additional capacity is now under construction.

Mr. Peyton: Total nuclear capacity in June, 1964, was 576 kW sent out, all of which was brought into operation since 1958. An additional 3,870 mW of nuclear capacity is now under construction.

Mr. Skeet: While I congratulate my hon. Friend on the advance which these figures disclose, may I ask whether his programme is justified, bearing in mind that the capital cost of plant for nuclear power stations is about £100 per kW as compared with only £35 per kW for conventional stations?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. Our experience so far will prove to be most valuable in the future. I should remind my hon. Friend that it is expected that nuclear power will become competitive with conventional stations in the early 1970s. Thereafter, it should become cheaper.

Mr. Skeet: Will this be from the American type reactors or from the A.G.R.?

Mr. Peyton: That would be looking far into the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Steel Imports

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power to what extent steel imports contributed adversely to the trade balance in the first four months of 1964; and what steps he intends to take to remedy the situation.

Mr. Peyton: The c.i.f. value of steel imports in the first four months of 1964 was £37 million. The f.o.b. value of steel exports in the same period was £62 million. In reply to the second part of the Question I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's Answer of 16th June.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the present position is very serious and very unsatisfactory? Is it not the case that imports in the first five months of this year—it

was four months in the Question, but since it was put down later figures have come out—have doubled compared with the same period last year and that many motor car manufacturers admit that they are buying overseas steel because of the inferior quality of the sheet steel which they are getting from our own industrialists? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is very unsatisfactory?

Mr. Peyton: I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Iron and Steel Board has been looking into the reasons for increased imports and I expect to hear from it very shortly. It has very nearly completed its inquiry.

Mr. Mendelson: While the Iron and Steel Board is looking into it, is it not already evident that at the time when people in the industry were on short-time working—working three instead of five or six shifts—it would have been much more sensible, as was urged on the Government from this side of the House at the time, to stock steel in order to have it ready at the present time?

Mr. Peyton: No, I cannot agree with that.

Mr. Ridley: Is it not true that a lot of these steel imports are coming from Canada, and would not my hon. Friend further agree that the tariff against our exports of steel to Canada is in many cases 17½ per cent. whereas there is free entry into this country for Canadian steel? Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to look into this serious disparity in the tariff structure?

Mr. Peyton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the Minister aware that in the spring of this year the Government introduced an Order to reduce import duties on many steel products from the Continent of Europe so that the motor car industry in this country could get the products which it so much required from the Continent because they were not available from the industry in this country?

Mr. Peyton: That is not a matter for my Department.

Baker and Bessemers' Employees (Compensation)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Power why the Iron and Steel Holdings and Realisation Agency has again turned down an application on behalf of the Baker and Bessemers' employees for compensation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: I understand that the Agency is informing claimants of the reasons for its decision. They can appeal against the Agency's decision to a tribunal under the procedure laid down by the Iron and Steel Act, 1953.

Mr. Wainwright: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if the men from Baker and Bessemers who are now unemployed do not receive compensation they will be very harshly dealt with? Is it not true that the consortium which purchased Baker and Bessemers from the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, as in the case of the English Steel Company and the other company which purchased from the consortium, knew at the time that this plant was to be closed down? Will he make certain that compensation is paid to these men who have been so harshly dealt with?

Mr. Peyton: I must make it clear that my right hon. Friend is required by the 1953 Act to make regulations. He is not responsible for dealing with individual cases. It would be dangerous and wrong for me to comment on a matter which can, and perhaps should, go to the tribunal set up for the purpose.

Steel Prices

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about the effect on steel prices of the ruling given recently by the Restrictive Practices Court, and on the use of his powers in this regard.

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Power if he will direct the Iron and Steel Board to review the system of laying down maximum prices for steel, in view of the ruling by the Restrictive Practices Court that certain price agreements based on these prices are contrary to the public interest.

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had with the Iron and Steel Board consequent

on the ruling by the Restrictive Practices Court on steel price agreements.

Mr. Peyton: As the Iron and Steel Board has said, the judgment is not likely in this period of high demand to have any marked immediate impact on prices. Nor does it call for the exercise of the Minister's statutory powers.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this period of very high demand may not last? Is he not aware that we are asking what his intentions are? Is it his intention to leave this so-called highly competitive and very efficient industry to go on all the time safeguarding itself on the basis of controlled prices? Does he not wish to see a little more competition in prices enter into the industry?

Mr. Peyton: The position is quite clear. The Conservative Government set up the Restrictive Practices Court. The Government also decided not to exclude the iron and steel industry from its jurisdiction. An important judgment has now been delivered, and naturally, my right hon. Friend would wish to consult the Iron and Steel Board and the industry before deciding future policy.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Minister would wish to consult the Iron and Steel Board. But he said that he was answering Question No. 22 which asks what consultations the Minister has had with the Iron and Steel Board. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when his right hon. Friend will initiate discussions with the Iron and Steel Board and with what end in view? Is it not the fact that part of the steel industry's case before the Restrictive Practices Court was that it was operating on prices laid down by the Iron and Steel Board and this system of price fixing was the basis of the agreement under review? Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Minister agrees with the ruling of the Restrictive Practices Court?

Mr. Peyton: It is not for me to agree or to disagree with the judgment of the court. I apologise to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) if any confusion was caused by my use of tenses in my Answer. Perhaps I may say to him that whatever system may be


evolved to produce a virile, competitive steel industry, public ownership would probably be the last one we should think of.

Mr. Skeet: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the objects of the Restrictive Practices Court was to ensure ample competition in the economy, and that nationalisation could not effect this?

Mr. Mitchison: Accepting, as no doubt the Government do, that these agreements were not in the national interest, what do they propose to do about it?

Mr. Peyton: I think I am right in saying that the court decided that they were not in the national interest because they were not necessary. As I have said, at a time of high demand the judgment of the court is unlikely to have an immediate effect on steel prices. The matter is still under consideration and it is a difficult problem.

Mr. Ross: Surely the Minister must appreciate—after all that we have been hearing about the importance of this industry and the need for freedom and the rest of it—that this judgment is something which demands action from the Government? Are we to understand—irrespective of what may have been said by the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development—that the Government are not prepared to do anything at all?

Mr. Peyton: The judgment of the court demands action by the industry, though one is perfectly prepared to have suggestions from all sides about what should be done. Nevertheless, I find those from advocates of public ownership most surprising.

Mr. Fraser: As there is, apparently, some confusion in the minds of hon. Members about what was the ruling of the Restrictive Practices Court, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to make the text available to hon. Members?

Mr. Peyton: I should like to consider that.

Motor Companies (Imported Steel)

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Minister of Power whether he will inquire into the volume of recent purchases of steel

from foreign countries by British motor companies.

Mr. Peyton: The Iron and Steel Board has nearly completed its examination of steel imports and will be covering this. I expect to hear from it shortly.

Mr. Foot: Is the hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that purchases of steel from abroad made by British motor companies are not disadvantageous to the legitimate interests of the steel industry? When he receives this report from the Board will he give a guarantee that if it is reported that in fact purchases have been made because the ownership of some of these motor companies is in foreign countries, he will take immediate action to protect the legitimate interests of the steel industry in this country?

Mr. Peyton: I should like to see the report first.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been drawn to a recent report in The Guardian that the Ford works at Dagenham admitted importing 20 per cent. of its sheet steel from the Continent because of the unsatisfactory quality of the steel from our own industry? Is this evidence of a highly efficient and highly competitive British steel industry?

Mr. Peyton: I have no reason to think that British sheet steel is inferior. In point of fact, the standard of this product from both of the new mills at Llanwern and Ravenscraig is first-class. I should very much regret any suggestion going from this House that our material is inferior.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the Minister for his tribute to the steel produced in the nationalised steelworks at Llanwern. In view of the report to which my hon. Friend referred, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's Ministry has made full inquiries, because many of us believe it may be that purchases made by the Ford Company are not due to any inferiority of British steel but to the fact that the ownership of some of these motor companies resides in foreign countries, a fact about which the Government appear to be completely careless?

Mr. Peyton: That is a matter for which I have no responsibility. Nor


do I accept the innuendo behind what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have told him already that this, among other matters, is being covered by the Iron and Steel Board in its present inquiry of which I am awaiting the result.

Mr. Foot: When will the result be available?

Mr. Peyton: I have told the hon. Gentleman—shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Smokeless Fuels

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Power what were the sales of open-grate and other solid smokeless fuels in the domestic market in the year ended March, 1964, in the previous year, and in 1958.

SALES OF SOLID SMOKELESS FUELS IN THE DOMESTIC MARKET


Thousand Tons


Types or Brands
52 weeks ended 27th December,1958
52 weeks ended 30th March,1963
52 weeks ended 28th March,1964


Specially reactive fuels (Coalite, Rexco, Cleanglow, Phimax, Warmco, Homefire)
741
1,469
1,568


Gas coke, including Gloco and Sebrite (a)
2,531
2,747
2,511


Coke oven coke, Sunbrite (b)
407
697
872


Anthracite and dry steam coals
1,479
1,553
1,642


Phurnacite
481
716
718


All other
71
105
130


Total
5,710
7,287
7,441


(a) Comprising cokes suitable for improved open fires (Gloco and Sebrite) and those normally burnt in domestic boilers, but excluding premium cokes made at gasworks (Cleanglow and Phimax) which are included under "Specially reactive fuels."


(b) The premium coke made at coke ovens (Warmco) is included under "Specially reactive fuels".

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power how the domestic sales of open-grate and other solid smokeless fuels compared with supplies in the year ended March, 1964; and what are the prospects for them in the current year.

Mr. Peyton: In the year ended March, 1964, supplies were generally adequate though there were a few temporary or local shortages of particular kinds of fuel. This year supplies are again expected to be adequate; in particular, production of specially reactive open-grate fuels should increase.

Mr. Osborn: In thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him

Mr. Peyton: Sales in the year ended March, 1964, were 7·4 million compared with 7·3 million tons in the previous year and 5·7 million tons in 1958. With permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing how these figures are divided between the different kinds of fuel.

Mr. Hall: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with this rate of increase in the sale of smokeless fuels? Will he say how far these sales have been affected by a shortage of supply?

Mr. Peyton: I cannot say. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that last year there was an addition to stocks of Gloco and even of the more popular specially reactive fuels. I do not think that there is any ground for anticipating a large increase in demand.

Following are the figures:

to comment on the stock position and to say whether he can indicate by what percentage stocks will be better in the coming winter than they were last winter?

Mr. Peyton: Stocks of gas coke at present stand at 1·9 million tons, but demnad for it is still falling. I will not add to what I have said in answer to previous supplementary questions.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Power what steps he takes before orders for smokeless zones are confirmed to ensure that smokeless fuels of high quality are available.

Mr. Peyton: It is for the local authorities to discuss their requirements with


the producers and suppliers and to base their smoke control orders on the fuels that can be made available.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that the local branch of the coal merchants' association in my constituency confirms that certain types of smokeless fuel are very inferior? Does he realise that an old-age pensioner told me that she had to light her fire 15 times in one day, at considerable expense, to try to keep the fire going? In view of these circumstances, should not the Department be satisfied that an efficient quality of smokeless fuel is available before the Minister confirms smokeless zones?

Mr. Peyton: It is true that at one time last winter a bad batch of Gloco was produced by the Scottish Gas Board, but this matter has been put right. I can only say that I sympathise with the unhappy experience to which the hon. Member has referred.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Power if he will now seek power to control the retail price of smokeless fuels; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: No.

Mr. Dempsey: It will be appreciated that I anticipated the hon. Gentleman's reply. Is he aware that something should be done about this? Does he realise that pensioners are paying more than 15s. for a bag of smokeless fuel and that this is a particularly high cost in relation to a pensioner's income and quite costly to the general public? Should he not take some action to ensure that the price of smokeless fuel is controlled within the limits of the public purse?

Mr. Peyton: Perhaps I might first congratulate the hon. Member on the shrewdness with which he anticipated my reply. Secondly, I am afraid that I must tell him that I do not believe that price control would be effective.

Mr. John Hall: Is it not a fact that the thermal efficiency of good smokeless fuel is greater than that of ordinary fuel and that the cost in return for heat given is probably lower than for the ordinary type of fuel?

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That is correct.

Mr. E. Taylor: asked the Minister of Power in view of the current shortage of smokeless fuel, when sufficient quantities of the right type of smokeless fuel at reasonable prices will be available in the North-West.

Mr. Peyton: There is no present shortage of solid smokeless fuels. I have no reason for thinking that present prices are unreasonable in relation to costs of supply.

Mr. Taylor: I do not know what will be thought about that reply in the Northwest. Is my hon. Friend aware that many towns in the North-West have suspended their smoke control orders because of this problem? Is he also aware that the greatest danger lies in the possibility of the breakdown of the control orders which have already been granted? I do not accept his Answer.

Mr. Peyton: This puts me in a very great difficulty, because I do not know what alternative answer I can offer to my hon. Friend. Of course I am aware of the problem, but prices, as I have told my hon. Friend, and as I have previously said, must reflect the cost of production. I very much hope that local authorities which are hesitant or doubtful about going ahead with clean air schemes because of the difficulties will accept that immense benefits would flow from a successful clear air policy and not be deterred.

Mr. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the uncertainty of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, I give notice that I should like to raise the matter on another occasion.

National Coal Board (Brick Output)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Power what is the most recent statistical information he has as to the current brick output of the National Coal Board; and how this compares with the same period last year.

Mr. Peyton: 205 million bricks between January and May this year, as against 187·5 million in the same months of last year.

Mr. Boyden: In view of the shortage of bricks and the reluctance of private brick makers to invest more in the industry, would the hon. Gentleman consider


making available to the National Coal Board more capital so that it can increase its already rising production of bricks to alleviate the shortage?

Mr. Peyton: Brick production as a whole is not a matter for me. I am afraid that I could not hold out any promise to furnish the National Coal Board with the funds for which the hon. Gentleman has asked. It may interest him to know, however, that the Board has recently announced the construction of a new plant at Desford, at a cost of £900,000, to produce 50 million bricks a year.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the National Coal Board has made a good job of this brick making?

Mr. Peyton: With great help from the Conservative Government, the national Coal Board has done very well in this field.

Retail Prices (Control)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Power if he will introduce legislation to enable him to control the retail price of coal.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Will the hon. Gentleman find a way of dealing with the particular point that in many towns coal in 28 1b. parcels is being sold in paper bags at 3s. 5d., which works out at £13 13s. 4d. per ton? As it is the poorest people who have to buy their coal in such small quantities, could not the hon. Gentleman take some action to control coal margins to bring the price down?

Mr. Peyton: On the general question of the price of coal, I do not think that there is anybody more anxious than the National Coal Board to keep it competitive. That is quite clear, and I am satisfied about it. On the second point, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the bagging and packaging of coal is very expensive. Each bag costs 6d., and this materially adds to the price.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Is not the hon. Gentleman concerned a great deal about the enormous difference between pithead prices and the price to the housewife? What are the Government doing to bring some rationalisation into the retail distribution

of coal, where most housewives believe the difficulties arise?

Mr. Peyton: Here is this awful word again. I suspect that "rationalisation" covers a multitude of sins, and that if we had it, we should regret it very soon.

Mr. Ridley: Will my hon. Friend resist this ridiculous suggestion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Would he not agree that it entails interfering with the commercial freedom of the nationalised industry, that it entails operating the National Coal Board as a welfare service, and that it also entails the presumption that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best?

Mr. Peyton: I see no reason to differ from what my hon. Friend has said. In fact, I accept it.

National Coal Board (Report and Accounts)

Colonel Lancaster: asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the fact that the National Coal Board's report and accounts will be for a 15-month period, he will ensure that when these accounts are presented they are broken down into the five quarters separately.

Mr. Peyton: The usual summary figures of quarterly revenue results will be given for each of the five quarters, and all revenue statements for the 15 month period will include also figures for the 12 months ending 28th March, 1964.

Colonel Lancaster: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he can assure the House that these figures will be available before we rise for the Summer Recess? Further, can he indicate the trend of production, consumption and profitability or otherwise in the first six months of the calendar year 1964?

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir; I cannot anticipate the accounts. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that I told the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) last month that it was hoped to publish the accounts at about the end of August. The National Coal Board is not under any statutory obligation to produce an outline of the accounts beforehand, but as my hon. and gallant Friend has expressed this wish, I will certainly undertake to consult the Chairman of the National Coal Board about the matter.

Coal Production (Automation)

Mr. B. Taylor: asked the Minister of Power if, in the light of the approval he gives to the Board's major development programmes, he will make a statement about the progress made by the National Coal Board with the extension of mechanisation and the introduction of automation in coal production.

Mr. Peyton: In the first half of this year more than 70 per cent. of the Board's deep-mined output was obtained by power loaders compared with 37½ per cent. in 1960. Trials of two types of equipment for remotely operated coal production are now in progress at four collieries in the East Midlands and Durham and I understand that the Board intends to extend these trials to other coal fields.

Mr. Taylor: May I ask the Minister whether the experiments being conducted in Ormonde Colliery, Derbyshire, and Newstead Colliery, Nottinghamshire, with remote-control working have been successful, and if so does the National Coal Board anticipate putting this type of machinery into other pits?

Mr. Peyton: I should remind the hon. Gentleman that these experiments are at a fairly early stage. As I have said before, the intention is to carry out wider experiments. It must also be borne in mind that these modern methods are not universally applicable.

Mr. Callaghan: Is this the industry which the Prime Minister was referring to when he talked about "the junk yard of nationalisation"?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Peyton: rose—

Mr. Ross: He has lived among miners all his life.

Mr. Peyton: I would certainly agree with what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion. Of course, I only hope that hon. Members opposite will never have a chance to add to the "junk yard".

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman, who says that he supports his right hon. Friend, is, in fact, making a vicious

attack upon the National Coal Board—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] Will not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, who has some responsibility in this matter, offer the congratulations of Her Majesty's Government to the National Coal Board on the measure of modernisation to which he referred in his Answer, which is unequalled in any sector of private industry in this country?

Mr. Peyton: All I would say to that is that it has taken a number of years for a Conservative Government to achieve sensible arrangements with the nationalised industries. I have no desire or intention to attack the National Coal Board. I am saying that, with the help of the Government, it has begun to overcome some of the problems—they are difficult ones—inherent in public ownership.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS

Natural Gas (Pipeline)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power what information he has about when the natural gas pipeline between Canvey Island and the North of England will be completed; and when the new gas works in Sheffield will be supplied with natural gas from this grid.

Mr. Peyton: The pipeline is almost complete and is now undergoing final tests. It is expected that natural gas will be supplied to the Sheffield gas works in the second half of September.

Mr. Osborn: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a very satisfactory Answer and that I should like to congratulate his Department on the work which has been done? Is he also aware that this was a matter which I pressed in my maiden speech as being of particular interest to me? Can my hon. Friend state how many other gas authorities will benefit by this supply? Will they all get it at the same time?

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. No words of mine are needed to embellish the well-deserved reputation for prescience which my hon. Friend enjoys.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Building Materials and Components (Exports)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, in view of the decline by £3,000,000 in exports of building materials and components in the last four years, what steps he is taking by way of credits under the Export Credits Guarantee Department or otherwise to ensure that those sections of the building materials industry whose exports have declined make a greater contribution to the export drive.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): All the services which Her Majesty's Government provide to help exporters are available to this industry as to others. Exports of building materials and components covered under the insurance facilities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department have risen by nearly £7 million in the last four years, from £16½ million in 1959 to £23¼ million in 1963.

Mr. Boyden: If the Department is doing its stuff, what is wrong with the producers of building materials? Surely they should be in a better position now than that of losing trade? is it not serious for the whole of the building industry if the efficiency of building producers is falling back?

Mr. du Cann: It is not a question of credit, as I think the hon. Gentleman will realise. My Department is taking action in the matter and the industry is participating in the Board of Trade's joint venture schemes. In particular, displays have been arranged in the specialised trade fairs at Paris, Brussels, Milan and Essen. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the total figures, he will see that the industry is doing well. Of course, we hope that it will do even better.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the harm being done to the cement industry by the imposition of the fuel oil tax?

Mr. du Cann: That is not relevant to the Question on the Paper.

Motor Vehicle Factories, Bathgate and Linwood

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development what is the estimated employment at the two motor vehicle factories at Bathgate and Linwood, set up with Government assistance under the Local Employment Act.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): It is estimated that the employment to be provided by the two motor vehicle factories at Bathgate and Linwood will be 5,600 and 3,500 respectively.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this development represents a welcome diversification of industry in Scotland? Does he further agree that the Rootes-Chrysler merger will be of great advantage in the sale of the Scottish Imp?

Mr. Heath: I quite agree.

Mr. A. Woodburn: While we appreciate this contribution to employment in Scotland, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has anything to report about contributory industries—those that supply parts to these motor companies? Scotland was promised that such companies would also gravitate to Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Ford Company, which can apparently get very good steel in Scotland—according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power—to come to Scotland to be near its source of supply?

Mr. Heath: I have always hoped that components manufacturers would begin to move to central Scotland in order to to be near the car firms. Unfortunately, I have little progress to report in that respect. I also hoped that Scottish firms themselves might begin to make suitable components. I hope that we shall begin to see progress in that direction.

Mr. Ross: We welcome this development, but can the right hon. Gentleman add information about the amount of public money by grant and loan invested in these projects? I believe that the last figure we had was over £16 million. Can he give a more accurate estimate?

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Gentleman is asking for specific amounts for specific firms, we do not normally give information of that kind.

Industrial Development, Scotland

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development how many applications for expansion or development in Scotland were received by the Board of Trade for the years ended 31st March, 1963, and 31st March, 1964.

Mr. Heath: 146 applications for industrial development certificates for Scotland were received in the year ended 31st March, 1963, and 177 in the following year.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Is not this good evidence of the Government's successful policy? Is not this proof of the advance of Scottish industry under this Government?

Mr. Heath: I think that this is a most encouraging development and I do not know why hon. Members opposite should be so dubious about it. It has meant an increase in jobs under I.D.C.s from 9,200 in the year ending March, 1963, to 14,200 in the following year. This is extremely encouraging.

Mr. Hector Hughes: How many of these applications for industrial development were for north-east Scotland, particularly Aberdeen, and how were they dealt with? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the north-east of Scotland, particularly Aberdeen, has been shockingly neglected both by his predecessor and himself in this respect?

Mr. Heath: If the hon. and learned Member will put down a Question, I will try to give him specific information about Aberdeen, but I cannot agree that it has been neglected.

Wallpaper

Mrs. Slater: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development if he is aware that some wallpaper companies have now made their rolls 10 metres long, so conforming to European Common Market standards, instead of the previous 13½ yards, thus shortening each roll by 1½

yards while keeping the price the same; and if he will introduce legislation to prevent this practice.

Mr. du Cann: No, Sir; my information is that a roll of British wallpaper used to be 11½, not 13½ yards long. To facilitate our export trade, the British industry has successfully worked to secure a standard European length of 10·05 metres, which is almost exactly 11 yards. This is not a matter which seems to me to justify Government intervention, particularly as our exports are increasing substantially.

Mrs. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are varying statements about this and that some firms have been making a 13½ yard roll? Is he aware that I have here a letter from two manufacturers saying that this method of reducing the amount of wallpaper in a roll was merely a subterfuge for increasing the price and that in some cases it has meant an increase in price of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. a roll, which is considerable? [Laughter.] I see nothing to laugh at. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, I see nothing to laugh at about this. The person who does his own wallpapering must now pay this increased price. Does the Minister of State also realise that, in the report referred to, it is admitted that there is a distributive costs margin of 60 per cent.? Does not he think that the Government should at least answer about this aspect?

Mr. du Cann: I will, of course, examine with interest any correspondence that the hon. Lady would like to let me have. On the other hand, I cannot accept everything she said in phrasing her two supplementary questions. I point out to her that there can be nothing more important for our export trade than making progress towards standardisation; and we are delighted that it has been achieved by the wallpaper industry.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is it not correct to say that, given the size of the roll, British wallpaper is the cheapest and probably the best in the world?

Mr. du Cann: What is so gratifying, as I pointed out, is that exports have risen so substantially, and that is what matters most.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the recent Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference.

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With permission, I will answer these Questions at the end of Question Time.

PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Denis Howell: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has undertaken with the President of Pakistan in respect of trade between the United Kingdom and Pakistan.

The Prime Minister: My discussions with my Commonwealth colleagues were confidential.

Mr. Howell: Would it not be deplorable, following the Prime Minister's exaggerated concern about trade in arms to other countries, if concern were not also shown about legitimate trade? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade has refused credit facilities in the case of the acrylic fibre plant in Pakistan? Will the Prime Minister show about this case some of the concern he has shown about arms in the last few weeks?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept what the hon. Member implies. We try within our resources to help as much as we can in the Commonwealth countries. This is a particular case which must be dealt with by commercial practice.

Mr. Jay: Since the issue of the £6 million acrylic fibre plant order was first raised in the House, the Pakistan Government have intervened with the Pakistan syndicate concerned and have asked it to

place the order, if possible, in this country and not in France. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only the Board of Trade's refusal to grant the necessary credits that is standing in the way of this very important order being gained by this country? Is it not scandalous that the Government should throw away export orders like this and that the Prime Minister should know nothing about it?

The Prime Minister: There is a Question on the Order Paper to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade about this matter. As I have said, we try to employ our resources to the best of our ability and to finance what we can in the Commonwealth countries. A whole variety of Commonwealth projects are involved. The right hon. Gentleman knows that quite well. My right hon. Friend will answer the Question on the Order Paper in due course.

Mr. P. Williams: Is it not the case that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade had striking success at the Geneva Trade Conference recently which has paid off handsomely to the benefit of Commonwealth countries?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that this country can be blamed for not doing what it can. Some 40 per cent. of our imports come from the developing countries.

Mr. Shinwell: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that these Commonwealth discussions are confidential? Are we not to be informed about trade relations between another Commonwealth country and the United Kingdom? Is it not important that we should be well informed on matters of this kind? Does the Prime Minister's answer mean that the reply he will give later to Questions about the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference will contain no information of any value?

The Prime Minister: The House, I think, can certainly be informed about Commonwealth trade and trade with Commonwealth countries, but I was asked about conversations with the President of Pakistan and they were confidential.

Mr. Jay: Will the Prime Minister answer the Question I asked him? Is


he aware that this contract is now likely to amount to £9 million? Does he take no interest in the loss of an order of this magnitude?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Member wants a specific answer about a specific deal he must ask for it from my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members could have had it if they had not taken so long in their supplementary questions.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the resolution in Southern Rhodesia forwarded to him by the Methodist Church Conference.

The Prime Minister: I have not yet sent a reply to the Methodist Church Conference. It seemed to me better to wait until the conclusion of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting before doing so.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Methodist Church Conference has urged Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in bringing together the European and African leaders in Southern Rhodesia with a view to preparing a way for independence under majority rule? Since the Prime Minister insists that the British Government alone are responsible for Southern Rhodesia, will he say what steps he intends to take to discharge that responsibility? Will he put this proposition to Mr. Ian Smith immediately?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I will answer that question now.

Mrs. Castle: Why not?

The Prime Minister: I had a very polite letter from the Methodist Church Conference simply expressing the view that—

Mr. Ross: What about the reply?

The Prime Minister: I am going to reply, but I shall do so following the Prime Ministers' conference because I think I can then better explain to the Methodist Church Conference the point of view of Her Majesty's Government and the other Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Bottomley: Is it not a fact that the Methodist Church endorsed what I suggested to the Prime Minister earlier—that a conference of the African leaders and European leaders should be called? Now that the Commonwealth Conference has agreed to that, what does the Prime Minister intend to do about it?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. Member is blessed by the Methodist Church.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Foot.

Mr. Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I called Mr. Foot.

Mr. M. Foot: Is not the Prime Minister to be congratulated on the fact that he reserved his reply until after the Prime Ministers' conference, seeing that he has had to turn several somersaults in the last few days?

Mr. Bottomley: Is it not a fact that the Methodist Church believes in straight talk? Could we have a little of that from the Prime Minister?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he proposes in future to change the practice in allocating responsibility for answering Parliamentary Questions as between himself and other Ministers in the House.

The Prime Minister: Not at all.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Prime Minister explain why in November, 1963, when he first came to office by devious means, he orally answered 29 Questions and transferred 6 and that in June of this year he orally answered 55 and transferred 48? Why has the right hon. Gentleman turned another somersault in this regard and refused to face the challenge in this House that he is always answering outside?

The Prime Minister: I was very interested in this Question and of course I want to serve the House, so I have been comparing my performance with that of my predecessors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps hon. Members would like to hear of my discoveries. I find that I have already answered more Questions in this incomplete Session of


Parliament than Lord Attlee did as Prime Minister in three whole Sessions. I have another bit of information in which I think the hon. Member will be interested. The second fact is that, to allow other hon. Members to receive as many Answers as have been given to the hon. Member, I should have had to answer 14,000 Questions in this House.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Lord Attlee was Prime Minister he did not have a quarter of an hour allocated to him for Questions? Is he further aware that he had a much less effective Opposition? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, if he has now got these figures, I could not get a Question down to him asking for them a fortnight ago?

The Prime Minister: Whatever we were like in Opposition, we did not ask silly questions like this. In answer to the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, this kind of figures are better late than never.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall all be gratified to know that in the days of Lord Attlee's Administration not only the country but the House was three times as satisfied with its Prime Minister as it is today? Are we now to take it that the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman will be a real sign of the ineffectiveness of the Conservative Opposition after October?

The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better wait and see, but I seem to remember that Lord Attlee was defeated.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we do not get on we shall spoil the statistics.

IMPORTED CANNED MEAT

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce arrangements to co-ordinate the responsibilities of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Secretary of State for Scotland for the protection of the public health against the risks associated with imported canned meat.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Such arrangements already exist and are periodically reviewed.

Mr. Robinson: Does the Prime Minister know the unhappy story of the consignment of contaminated corned beef which caused food poisoning in Edinburgh? Is he aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was unable to prevent the import of corned beef from an establishment which used unchlorinated water, was uninspected and unlicensed, and that the Minister of Health, although he tried to withdraw the corned beef from circulation, did not know how much had been distributed, where it had gone, nor that there were three brands and not one brand involved in the consignment? Does he not think that this suggests that at least some co-ordination is needed?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends are reviewing the situation to see if there can be any improvement of their joint action at present. If the hon. Member has a suggestion to make, I shall be only too glad to have it, for we want to make our co-ordinating machinery as efficient as possible.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was the responsibility of the Minister of Health which caused the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to resign from his Government back in the Socialist days?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Prime Minister not realise the confusion which for years has existed in the various Ministries mentioned in the Question? Does he not realise that this confusion has been a grave danger to the nation from the time of the poison epidemic? Will he give serious consideration to the co-ordination asked for in the Question?

The Prime Minister: I have said so, but I do not think that there are any essential flaws in the present arrangements. If we can improve on them, of course we will.

Sir Richard Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that statistics for corned beef over the last five years show that nearly 100 million tins have been imported, of which the numbers suspected of having been infected with typhoid are three tins?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that meat which is refused in one port can be brought in


through another port and accepted there? Is he aware that there is no co-ordination among the different medical officers of health as to the terms on which meat can be rejected? If meat is found unsuitable in one port, will he take steps to see that there are communications with other ports in order that that meat should not be accepted?

The Prime Minister: I will bring this point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With permission, I will now answer Question Nos. Q1, Q4 and Q5 together.
Hon. Members will no doubt already have seen the final communiqué issued last night at the end of this meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, but I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if, with permission, I circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Hon. Members will wish to study the text in detail, but it may be helpful at this stage if I make a few comments on this meeting.
I would like to say, first, that in the opinion of those who took part in it, the meeting was judged a success. For all those who have the interests of the Commonwealth at heart, this was a most encouraging meeting. I think that all my colleagues in the Commonwealth would agree that we express our real views freely and frankly to each other: and out of it came a degree of understanding which is remarkable when one considers the diversity of the interests and peoples and cultures represented round the table.
It is because the Commonwealth is a community of many different races that the statement at the outset of our communiqué about race relations is of such importance.
In our review of international affairs we welcomed the gradual relaxation of tension which is of benefit to the unaligned countries as much as it is to those who are members of military alli-

ances. But, as old problems are resolved, new ones take their place. So we had to consider the problem of Malaysia, and all of us assured the Prime Minister of Malaysia of our sympathy and support in his efforts to preserve the sovereign independence and integrity of his country and to promote a peaceful and honourable settlement of current differences between Malaysia and neighbouring countries.
While we maintained the convention that we do not discuss among ourselves the substance of differences between members of the Commonwealth—unless Commonwealth countries ask that that should be done—we felt that we should note with satisfaction the friendly public statements which have been made by the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India; and we expressed our hope that the problems between their countries will be solved in the same friendly spirit. The House will understand, I am sure, that despite the interest which all of us have in this problem, it would be wrong for me to go beyond the words of the communiqué.
The House will expect me to say something about Southern Rhodesia. The first point to which I would like to draw attention is that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers saw this question in the context of the continuing progress of British colonial dependencies towards independence within the Commonwealth. The communiqué deals in some detail with this question, and I will not attempt to summarise it beyond saying that it recognises two essential facts: first, that responsibility for decisions on the progress of Southern Rhodesia towards independence rests with the British Government; and, secondly, that as the history of the progressive move towards independence within the Commonwealth illustrates, there are certain basic pre-requisites on which all of us agree before a territory moves towards full independence.
I have said that the problem of Southern Rhodesia is our responsibility and that all the Prime Ministers recognise that it is. On this basis, I promised to give full consideration to all the views that they expressed, because the final resolution of this problem must affect all of us and all of us will benefit when it is solved.
I have kept to the order of the communiqué, but in many ways the most important part lies in the economic section and the proposals for increased Commonwealth co-operation in many fields.
Hon. Members will find these listed in the communiqué, and I hope that they will feel that they are all desirable in themselves and mark a collective will to increase our co-operation and contacts. In the long term the strengthening of the Commonwealth depends on such things as development projects, administrative training, educational assistance, the pooling of medical knowledge, and increased contacts between the professions, and here I would mention the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other initiatives of this kind which are of real and direct benefit to the ordinary people in every Commonwealth country.
The proposal for a Commonwealth Secretariat is also significant. It is a symbol of the desire of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to maintain a continuing expression of the spirit of the Commonwealth and to continue to strengthen our association for the work which we shall do together in the years ahead.

Mr. Henderson: In congratulating the Prime Minister, for my part, on the statement which he has made, may I refer to the statement in the communiqué that all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers have expressed their views on the advance of Southern Rhodesia to full independence? No doubt they expressed their support of that objective.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to follow up these discussions by taking a fresh initiative and whether he proposes to invite Mr. Ian Smith to come to London to have further discussions with him on this matter?

The Prime Minister: I think that the House knows that I have invited Mr. Smith. I hope that he will be able to announce his reply.

Mr. Wall: Is the Prime Minister aware that many faint hearts thought that this conference might be the end of the Commonwealth? Instead of that, it has increased in strength, due to his leadership, common sense and humanity.
When setting up a Commonwealth Secretariat, will my right hon. Friend consider a regional structure, together with frequent regional meetings of Commonwealth Ministers?
May I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that any calling of a constitutional conference on Southern Rhodesia without the prior agreement of the Southern Rhodesian Government would be an infringement of the Constitution and the convention?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asked about the Secretariat and a regional structure. It was the unanimous wish and feeling of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers that the Secretariat should be located in London. What future developments there might be on a regional basis remains to be seen. We had better get it set up first in London.
My hon. Friend asked about the constitutional conference—if it takes place—on Southern Rhodesia. Of course, it cannot take place unless the parties in Southern Rhodesia are willing to come.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will be gratified that in the event the conference did discuss Southern Rhodesia, despite the Prime Minister's repeated assurances that it would not do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] We welcome what the Prime Minister agreed to.
Is the Prime Minister aware that last September, and again in the debate on the Queen's Speech, we pressed for an early Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference to deal with the question of Southern Rhodesia? Does he not feel that if it had been called earlier the situation would not have worsened as much as it has in the past few months?
Secondly, would the Prime Minister tell the House how many of the Commonwealth countries expressed their support of his policy in respect of arms to South Africa? Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman was virtually isolated in the Commonwealth on this policy of arms to South Africa?
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to development and aid in his statement this afternoon, but he did not refer to trade. Having regard to the fall in Commonwealth trade to this country


since 1959, from 36 per cent. to 30 per cent., did he inform the Commonwealth Prime Ministers that it will be the policy of the Government to reverse that trend, or will he continue to let it fall as long as he remains in office?

The Prime Minister: I must thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he described as a warm welcome! Now I will reply to the detailed questions he asked.
The right hon. Gentleman said, first, that I had said that we should not discuss the affairs of Southern Rhodesia. What we discussed were not the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia or our responsibility. We discussed steps that might help towards the independence of Southern Rhodesia. That could include a number of things, one of which is the constitutional conference.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me, then, whether it would have helped to have had the conference earlier. I cannot see that it would have helped at all. I think that yesterday we came to sensible conclusions. I will, as I said, take into account all the points of view expressed by all members of the conference.
Then the right hon. Gentleman asked me how many Governments had expressed a view on sanctions and the export of arms to South Africa. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman—I thought that he knew this already—that we never say which Prime Ministers support this policy or turn down that policy. We never do that. We do not express individual views on any subject discussed by the Prime Ministers, and the right hon. Gentleman should know that.

Mr. Brockway: Mr. Brockway rose—

Hon. Members: What about trade?

The Prime Minister: In my statement I said that I thought that the economic section was perhaps the most important of the lot.
On the question of trade, the Prime Ministers felt that we, the United Kingdom, were in a very good position to follow up the Geneva Conference, at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade took such a leading part. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers supported the lead my right hon. Friend took and our

initiative. I was able to tell the House in answer to a Question, when, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman was not here, that we draw 40 per cent. of our imports from developing countries. That is not a bad record.

Mr. Brockway: Mr. Brockway rose—

Mr. H. Wilson: Mr. H. Wilson rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to allow a Question to the hon. Member who had a Question on the Paper.

Mr. Brockway: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us regard this communiqué as a charter of principle and practice for the Commonwealth in relation to racial equality, national freedom, and co-operation in economics, education and health?
Is the Prime Minister aware, however, that some of us are rather puzzled by his statement that there was no discussion about Southern Rhodesia? Does not the communiqué indicate that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers asked for a representative conference in Southern Rhodesia and the release of the prisoners there? Are not those matters dealing with Southern Rhodesia and not merely with the theory of independence? Why does the right hon. Gentleman attempt to mislead the House, the country and the Commonwealth by that kind of evasive reply?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any question of misleading the House or anybody else. What we did was to assert from the start that the affairs of Southern Rhodesia and its progress towards independence were matters between Southern Rhodesia and the United Kingdom and nobody else. Therefore, we did not discuss the internal affairs of the country of Southern Rhodesia. What we thought was much the most sensible arrangement was that, having accepted the British responsibility, other Prime Ministers should be able to express such views as they liked about the progress of Southern Rhodesia to independence, because, if Southern Rhodesia asks for independence within the Commonwealth, that will be a matter of concern to other Prime Ministers.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of people in the country think that the results of the conference are far more important


than small party politics? Would my right hon. Friend enlighten us on how he envisages that the proposed Commonwealth Secretariat will work? How will it work in with the Commonwealth Economic Committee and a Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council? Was the proposal for a Commonwealth Economic Development Council studied by the Prime Ministers? Does the communiqué allow such a Council to proceed if the Commonwealth Secretariat so recommends?

The Prime Minister: The Prime Ministers asked their senior officials to advise us on just this kind of question. We shall have a recommendation from them on the job of the Secretariat and the way in which the Secretariat will co-ordinate with other bodies of this kind.

Mr. Grimond: While welcoming the communiqué, may I ask the Prime Minister two questions about our future relationship with Southern Rhodesia in the light of the communiqué? First, the right hon. Gentleman has informed the House that he has asked the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia to come to London for conversations, but the communiqué suggests that this invitation ought to be extended to the leaders of all parties in Southern Rhodesia. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to invite all parties and whether, if he is not prepared to answer that question now, he will ensure that the House is given an answer before we rise?
Secondly, the communiqué also suggests that there should be an amnesty for political prisoners in Southern Rhodesia. May I ask the Prime Minister whether this recommendation has been conveyed to the Government of Southern Rhodesia and whether the House may be informed of the reply when it is sent?

The Prime Minister: One first deals with Governments. Therefore, I have asked Mr. Smith to come here. After seeing Mr. Smith, I shall have to consider what further steps are possible. As the communiqué says, an amnesty for prisoners is a matter for the Southern Rhodesian Government. I remind the

right hon. Gentleman that, in the case of one prisoner, an appeal is pending next week. Therefore, I think that I had better say no more on this.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although such matters as trying to resolve differences in the Commonwealth are obviously important, the most outstanding result of the conference was, in fact, the prospect of increasing co-operation at all levels in the Commonwealth?
My right hon. Friend mentioned Malaysia in his statement. Can my right hon. Friend confirm, without any breach of confidence, that support for Malaysia and its continuing independence was unanimous throughout the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: I think that my statement contained the phrase "the Prime Ministers". Whenever that phrase is used, it means unanimity. Therefore, the answer is, "Yes". Various countries support Malaysia in different ways. We, the Australians and the New Zealanders support her in a military capacity. Others may be able to give diplomatic or moral support. Each country must judge.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister now return to the question of trade, which used to be regarded as important in the House in Commonwealth matters? Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he and his colleagues analysed the reasons why Commonwealth trade to this country, since 1959, has fallen from 36 per cent. to 30 per cent.? Does he still agree with the views expressed by his colleagues that Commonwealth trade must inevitably decline? Did he make any concrete proposals within the Commonwealth for increasing Commonwealth trade?
Did the right hon. Gentleman, as was suggested to him, give an undertaking that no future Government in this country would enter into negotiations to enter the Common Market without—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Government nearly wrecked the Commonwealth in 1962 on this issue. Did the Prime Minister give an assurance that there would be no such entry without a prior Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference before negotiations were begun?

The Prime Minister: We were not asked for any assurances and no assurances were, therefore, necessary to be given. We were concerned with increasing trade in future and with the follow up of the Geneva Conference. Commonwealth trade is increasing absolutely and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers were interested in increasing the trade between the Commonwealth countries, particularly for the developing countries.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: While warmly welcoming the constructive proposals for economic and social co-operation in the Commonwealth, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there will be disappointment at the absence of any reference in the communiqué to the possibility of a Commonwealth court of appeal? Is he further aware that that disappointment will not be confined to lawyers, but will extend to many others who wish to extend the formal links of the Commonwealth and promote its contribution to the rule of law?

The Prime Minister: I have often been attracted by this idea. It is a matter which we shall pursue in correspondence, but it was not a matter which we discussed at the conference.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members cannot pursue this further without there being a Question before the House. We have too much to do.

Following is the text of the final communiqué:

The meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers ended to-day. Pakistan, Ghana and Tanganyika and Zanzibar were represented by their Presidents. Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, Malaysia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Kenya and Malawi were represented by their Prime Ministers. India was represented by the Minister of Finance; Cyprus by the Minister of Foreign Affairs; and Jamaica by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

This was the first meeting at which Uganda and Kenya were represented as independent Members; and the other Commonwealth Heads of Government were glad to greet their Prime Ministers. They expressed their satisfaction at the establishment of Malaysia which they had welcomed at their last meeting in 1962 and they greeted Tunku Abdul Rahman as Prime Minister of Malaysia.

They also welcomed the attainment of independence by Malawi on 6th July, 1964, and agreed that Malawi should be admitted to

membership of the Commonwealth. They invited the Prime Minister of Malawi, Dr. Banda, to join their meeting; and Dr. Banda took his seat on 9th July. They noted that Northern Rhodesia would become independent on 24th October, 1964, as the Republic of Zambia; and they looked forward to welcoming Zambia as a member of the Commonwealth on the completion of the necessary constitutional processes.

In the course of their discussion, the Presidents and Prime Ministers reviewed the major issues of the day.

They agreed that one of the most important of these is race relations. It was agreed that the Commonwealth has a particular rôle to play in the search for solutions to the interracial problems which are threatening the orderly development of mankind in general and of many particular areas in the world today. As a community of many different races, the Commonwealth is itself an almost unique experiment in international co-operation among peoples of several races and continents. Within their own borders many of its members have faced and are facing issues raised by the co-existence of differing cultures within a democratic society.

The Prime Ministers affirmed their belief that, for all Commonwealth Governments, it should be an objective of policy to build in each country a structure of society which offers equal opportunity and non-discrimination for all its people, irrespective of race, colour or creed. The Commonwealth should be able to exercise constructive leadership in the application of democratic principles in a manner which will enable the people of each country of different racial and cultural groups to exist and develop as free and equal citizens.

The Prime Ministers recalled the critical international situation which had developed after their last meeting in the autumn of 1962 and the grave threat to peace which it had implied. They believed that the fact that it was successfully resolved may have been in some sense a turning point in the relations between the major Powers and may have marked the beginning of a new period in international affairs in which the world may hope for a gradual relaxation of tension. This will not be a short or simple process; but the Prime Ministers noted with satisfaction the further steps which had already been taken to reduce the causes of friction, particularly the conclusion of the Tests Ban Treaty and the subsequent agreements between the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union not to place nuclear weapons in outer space. They also welcomed the reduction in the output of fissile material for military purposes which these Governments have made.

Against this background, the Prime Ministers expressed their hope that these steps would lead progressively to general and complete disarmament. They reaffirmed their support for the work of the Geneva Disarmament Conference and their determination to seek to extend the scope of disarmament in accordance with the principles expressed in their statement


of 17th March, 1961, particularly by endeavouring to promote an agreement to prohibit the further dissemination of nuclear weapons and of knowledge relating to their manufacture and use. They will maintain their efforts to reduce the areas of international disagreement by all the means within their power, while maintaining both the strength and the resolution to resist aggression from without or subversion from within.

In this connection, they assured the Prime Minister of Malaysia of their sympathy and support in his efforts to preserve the sovereign independence and integrity of his country and to promote a peaceful and honourable settlement of current differences between Malaysia and neighbouring countries.

They discussed the great significance of China for South and South-East Asia. They also discussed the question of relations with China and of her membership of the United Nations. They expressed anxiety about the continuing tension in South-East Asia and affirmed their support for all measures which might promote a just and peaceful settlement and help to re-establish stability in the area.

The Prime Ministers noted with satisfaction the friendly public statements by the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India and expressed their hopes that the problems between their countries will be solved in the same friendly spirit.

While recognising that it was not a function of the Commonwealth to act as an arbiter in disputes between member nations, the Prime Ministers agreed that Commonwealth countries could play a rôle of conciliation and, where possible, consider using their good offices to help towards the settlement of disputes between member nations provided the parties concerned accepted such mediation.

The Prime Ministers renewed their support for the United Nations in its efforts to resolve disputes in various parts of the world. They reaffirmed their adherence to the principles of the Charter and emphasised the importance of reinforcing the strength and capacity of the United Nations to respond to the demands which it must meet if the Charter is to be fulfilled.

The Prime Ministers expressed concern about the situation with regard to Cyprus. They reaffirmed their full support for the United Nations Security Council Resolutions of 4th March, 13th March and 20th June, 1964. The Prime Ministers asserted that the Cyprus problem should be solved within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with the principles of democracy and justice.

They appealed to all countries concerned to refrain from any action which might undermine the task of the United Nations peace-keeping force, to which a number of Commonwealth countries are contributing, or might prejudice the endeavours of the United Nations to find a lasting solution in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.

The Prime Ministers undertook to consider practical measures to strengthen the peacekeeping machinery of the United Nations and to reduce the degree of improvisation required

in an emergency. They agreed that consultation and co-operation among interested governments in this matter could be of great value in contributing to the improvement of the peacekeeping effectiveness of the United Nations.

The Prime Ministers expressed their concern at the possible effect on United Nations operations in all fields of a prolongation of the United Nations financial crisis. They expressed a common desire to work towards a long-term equitable solution of the problem of financing large-scale United Nations peacekeeping operations and agreed that any such solution should be based on the principles of collective financial responsibility and relative capacity to pay.

Britain made the following statement to the meeting about the progress of British colonial dependencies towards independence.

Already more than 20 countries—with a total population of some 700 million—had achieved sovereign independence under British guidance. This process was continuing all the time. Northern Rhodesia would be independent in October and the Gambia very soon after. Basutoland had been promised that she could have independence in about 18 months' time; Bechuanaland would be free to follow when she wished; and Swaziland's new constitution had now set her on the same course. In addition, it had been agreed that the Federation of South Arabia should become independent within the next 3½ years. British Guiana would become independent as soon as she was able to assure internal peace. Southern Rhodesia would attain full sovereignty as soon as her governmental institutions were sufficiently representative.

There were a number of other Colonies which already enjoyed a wide measure of self-government. These included the Bahamas, Barbados, British Honduras and Mauritius. In addition there were some 20 other Colonies and Protectorates with a combined population of about 5 million. Of these, over 3 million were in Hong Kong where the circumstances were exceptional. Of the remainder only two territories had a population of more than 100,000. Several had less than 10,000. The smallest, Pitcairn, in the Pacific had only 90 inhabitants. It was clear that no uniform pattern would fit all these very different territories. Some might feel strong enough to proceed to independence on their own. Some might join with others to form larger and more viable units. Some might wish to couple independence with a treaty of friendship such as Western Samoa concluded with New Zealand. Some would for the present prefer to remain as they were.

The Prime Ministers of the other Commonwealth countries welcomed the progress of British territories to independent membership of the Commonwealth. They recognised that the authority and responsibility for leading her remaining Colonies to independence must continue to rest with Britain.

At the same time, Prime Ministers of other Commonwealth countries expressed their views to the Prime Minister of Britain on the question of the progress of Southern Rhodesia towards independence within the Commonwealth. They welcomed the decision already


announced by the British Government that, as in the case of other territories, the existence of sufficiently representative institutions would be a condition of the grant of independence to Southern Rhodesia. They also noted with approval the statement already made by the British Government that they would not recognise any unilateral declaration of independence; and the other Prime Ministers made it clear that they would be unable to recognise any such declaration. The view was also expressed that an Independence Conference should be convened which the leaders of all parties in Southern Rhodesia should be free to attend. The object would be to seek agreement on the steps by which Southern Rhodesia might proceed to independence within the Commonwealth at the earliest practicable time on the basis of majority rule. With a view to diminishing tensions and preparing the way for such a conference, an appeal was made for the release of all the detained African leaders. The Prime Ministers called upon all leaders and their supporters to exercise moderation and to abstain from violence; and they affirmed their belief that the best interest of all sections of the population lay in developing confidence and co-operation, on the basis of tolerance, mutual understanding and justice. In this connection, they recognised the necessity for giving confidence to the minority community in Southern Rhodesia that their interests would be protected.

The Prime Minister of Britain said that he would give careful consideration to all the views expressed by other Commonwealth Prime Ministers. At the same time he emphasised that the Government of Southern Rhodesia was constitutionally responsible for the internal affairs of that territory and that the question of the granting of independence was a matter for decision by the British Parliament.

The Meeting expressed concern at the political rivalries in British Guiana which had led to disorder and inter-racial strife and had prejudiced the attainment of independence. While several different views were expressed on the methods to be employed, a number of Prime Ministers expressed the hope that the political leaders of British Guiana would seek urgently a basis for collaboration in the interest of their fellow countrymen of all races in order to restore mutual confidence among the races and to strengthen a spirit of national purpose and unity. Only in these circumstances could British Guiana hope to sustain true independence.

The question of the progress of the smaller dependent territories in the Caribbean to independence was raised. It was emphasised that the problem for the territories was mainly one of viability: and the hope was expressed that every practicable effort would be made to help them to strengthen their economies and so enable them to sustain the obligations of independence whether in a federation or in some other form of association.

The Prime Ministers reaffirmed their condemnation of the policy of apartheid practised by the Government of the Republic of South Africa. Some Commonwealth Prime Ministers felt very strongly that the only effective means of dealing with the problem of apartheid was the application of economic sanctions and an

arms embargo. It was recognised however that there was a difference of opinion among Commonwealth countries as to the effectiveness of economic sanctions and as to the extent to which they regarded it as right or practicable to seek to secure the abandonment of apartheid by coercive action, of whatever kind. But the Prime Ministers were unanimous in calling upon South Africa to bring to an end the practice of apartheid, which had been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations and was deplored by public opinion throughout the world.

The Prime Ministers expressed their regret that Portugal had not so far given recognition to the principle of self-determination for her territories in Africa.

The Prime Ministers agreed that the issues of Commonwealth and international relations which confront them in the political field, however complex and contentious, must be seen in perspective in relation to the many factors which bring together the peoples of the Commonwealth and enable them to make a unique contribution to the promotion of peaceful development. The Commonwealth now consists of 18 independent Member countries, widely distributed over the globe and accounting for nearly a quarter of the population of the world. It is, indeed, a cross-section of the world itself; and its citizens have an unparalleled opportunity to prove that, by mutual co-operation, men and women of many different races and national cultures can live in peace and work together for the common good.

The Prime Ministers reviewed the world economic situation as it affects their countries and reaffirmed the resolve of their Governments to promote the economic development of their countries. To this end, they emphasised the need of developing countries for improved and more remunerative outlets for their trade and for increased financial aid on easier terms and on a continuing basis. They took note of the problems presented to developing countries by the conditions and terms often attached by donor Governments to their aid, of the desirability of the encouragement of private investment in developing countries and also of the upward trend in the level of financial aid extended by the more developed countries in the Commonwealth and of the easier terms on which it is offered.

There was agreement on the importance for all Commonwealth countries of following up the work of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, in particular with regard to expanding international trade in primary products through freer access to markets and, in appropriate cases, through commodity agreements and stabilised prices at equitable levels; working out arrangements for increasing access by preferences or otherwise to markets in developed countries for manufactured goods from developing countries; and elaborating proposals for supplementary finance to assist countries whose development might be threatened by adverse movements in their export earnings. The Prime Ministers affirmed their intention of working for a solution of these and other problems of the


developing countries through the new institutions resulting from the Conference as well as through existing international bodies such as the G.A.T.T.

The Prime Ministers reaffirmed the resolve of the Member countries of the Commonwealth to promote the economic and social progress of developing countries. They wished to maintain their support of the work of the United Nations, its specialised agencies, the Colombo Plan and other similar arrangements in this field. At the same time, they wished to establish how best the members of the Commonwealth could make a further distinctive contribution of their own to the development of its Member countries. They conceived that the purpose of any new initiative in this respect should be not merely to increase the economic strength and material well-being of the recipients, vital though these considerations are, but also to strengthen the links between the countries of the Commonwealth by encouraging their peoples to work more closely together in a variety of practical ways. For this purpose they selected for further examination several fields of action in which they believed the practice of Commonwealth co-operation might be extended; and they agreed that these schemes should not be in substitution for existing arrangements but supplementary to them.

Commonwealth Development Projects
In particular they considered a proposal that development projects might be launched in individual Commonwealth countries, which would be implemented by various Members acting in close collaboration and contributing whatever resources—in men, money, materials and technical expertise—they could most appropriately provide. Such projects, which would be additional to the support which Commonwealth countries already provide to the United Nations Special Fund and Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance could be directed to a number of different purposes—the improvement of agricultural production and the development of natural resources through extension services, training and research; the enlargement of professional and technical training; the development of new industries; and so forth. But they would all be inspired by the common purpose of promoting the development of the Commonwealth by a co-ordinated programme of joint or bilateral projects. The British Government said that they would be prepared to make a substantial contribution to projects of this kind within their expanding programme of development aid. The other Member governments expressed support for the objective of the proposal and agreed that further consideration should be given to the basis on which such a programme might be established.

Administrative Training
Development projects of this kind would need to be planned, carefully and thoroughly, at all stages in their execution; and the Prime Ministers therefore considered that it might be valuable to supplement the existing arrangements for promoting the study of the techniques of administration and development planning throughout the Commonwealth. They

considered that there might be advantage in making arrangements, which could include the formation of a new Institute, to provide facilities for specialised training and research for senior administrators concerned with administrative and development problems in relation to the needs of new countries. They agreed that further consideration should be given to the most appropriate form for arrangements for additional training, including the strengthening of existing institutions.

Education
The Prime Ministers took note of the scope which exists for co-operation between the Government and peoples of the Commonwealth in social, as well as economic, development. They noted with satisfaction that the Third Commonwealth Education Conference will be held in Ottawa in August; and they expressed warm wishes for its success, together with appreciation of the British Government's offer to increase to an average of £5 million a year, over the five years starting in 1965–66, the capital assistance which they already provide for higher education in developing Commonwealth countries, both independent and dependent.

Medical Conference
They decided in principle that an initiative similar to that which was launched in the field of education by the first of the Commonwealth Education Conferences several years ago should now be taken in the field of medicine and that for this purpose consideration should be given to the convening of a Commonwealth Medical Conference during the course of 1965. Such a Conference would enable the members of the Commonwealth to discuss mutual assistance in medical education including links between institutions; the provision of ancillary staffs, the development and planning of health services; and the supply of medical equipment and facilities for research.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
The links between the countries of the Commonwealth are strengthened not only by co-operation between their Governments in initiatives of this kind, but, even more, by frequent personal contacts between individuals who share common professional interests.
The Prime Ministers recorded their support for the valuable work which the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association performs in bringing together members of the Parliaments of all Commonwealth countries. The British Government stated that they would be prepared, if other Commonwealth Governments would do the same, to increase their contribution to the Association.

Commonwealth Foundation
The Prime Ministers considered that further steps should be taken to promote contacts in other fields and that it might be desirable to establish a Commonwealth Foundation to administer a fund for increasing interchanges between Commonwealth organisations in professional fields. This Foundation could be administered by an independent Board; and, while it could be financed by contributions from Commonwealth Governments, it would


also welcome support from all quarters, whether public or private.

Satellite Communications
The Prime Ministers also took note of the current international discussions on the establishment of a global system of satellite communications. They endorsed the desirability of establishing such a system and considered how Commonwealth countries could best co-operate with each other and with other countries in its development. They discussed the provision of technical assistance to the developing countries in this field, particularly as regards the establishment of ground stations and inter-connections in Commonwealth countries. They agreed that further consideration should be given to the feasibility of such a plan and the basis on which it might best be implemented.
The Prime Ministers directed that the Commonwealth Liaison Committee with the assistance of special representatives should now give more detailed consideration to all aspects of these new initiatives in the hope that they could be launched and carried forward at an early date. They noted that thereafter further opportunities to review many of these projects would be afforded by the third Commonwealth Education Conference in Ottawa in August and by the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council meeting in Kuala Lumpur in September.

Commonwealth Secretariat
Finally, they were anxious that some permanent expression should be given to the desire, which had been evident through their deliberations, for closer and more informed understanding between their Governments on the many issues which engage their attention and for some continuing machinery for this purpose. They therefore instructed officials to consider the best basis for establishing a Commonwealth Secretariat, which would be available inter alia to disseminate factual information to all Member countries on matters of common concern; to assist existing agencies, both official and unofficial, in the promotion of Commonwealth links in all fields; and to help to co-ordinate, in co-operation with the host country, the preparations for future meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government and, where appropriate, for meetings of other Commonwealth Ministers. This secretariat, being recruited from Member countries and financed by their contributions, would be at the service of all Commonwealth Governments and would be a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth.
Marlborough House, S.W.1.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. The rules of the House in regard to Questions have been violated on today's Order Paper and I want your advice, Mr. Speaker, on how this situation may be avoided in future.
I draw your attention to Question No, 51, standing in my name, to the Minister of Transport. I raised with you on Tuesday the fact that a Question of mine addressed to the Prime Minister asking him what reply he had sent to a letter from my constituent, Mr. Melling, about concessionary fares for old people had been transferred by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Transport. I suggested to you then, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister's growing habit of transferring awkward Questions could result in a Minister having to answer a Question which would have been out of order if it had been tabled to him in the first place.
I suggest that that is exactly what has happened in regard to my Question No. 51. Under the rules of the House an hon. Member must take responsibility for the accuracy of any statement contained in his or her Question, and this I could certainly do in regard to the Question which I originally tabled to the Prime Minister. But that Question was then transferred, without my consent. It is now out of order and so am I, Mr. Speaker, and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady is out of order I am not sure that I should be hearing her. Can I assist her and the House in this way, although I would not like to rule on this matter now? I would like to consider the matter, although I must say that I am not impressed by the argument in regard to the form in which the Question is on the Order Paper. However, I do not express a view on that now. I would rather consider it and I will include the matter in the Ruling I was going to give relating to transfers at the first convenient moment. My desire is only to enable the House to get on with business questions.

Mrs. Castle: Further to my point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will protect all the hon. Lady's rights in every way.

Mrs. Castle: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. but may I assist you in your deliberations by pointing out that there has never been any letter from Mr. Melling to the Minister of Transport? This Question is, therefore, nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Lady that I have the point in mind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 20TH JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on the Cost of Living. We propose to facilitate consideration of the Lords Amendments to the following Private Members' Bills.

Scrap Metal Dealers,
Riding Establishments, and
Trading Stamps;
and the remaining stages of the New Forest Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY, 21ST JULY—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on Trade and Industry in Scotland.

At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes, under Standing Order No. 18.

Remaining stages of the Divorce (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY, 22ND JULY—Second Reading of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Bill, after which we shall ask the House to take the remaining stages.

Debate on the Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on the British Overseas Airways Corporation.

Second Reading of the Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords], and of the Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Motions on the Double Taxation Relief Orders for Malawi and Northern Rhodesia.

THURSDAY, 23RD JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Report.

Debate on the Family Doctor Service, until seven o'clock, and afterwards on Concessionary Fares.

At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes, under Standing Order No. 18.

Motions on the Thames Conservancy Orders, and the Police Pensions Regulations.

FRIDAY, 24TH JULY—Remaining stages of the following Bills:

Diplomatic Privileges [Lords].
Education [Lords].
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) [Lords].
Staute Law Revision [Lords].
Statute Law Revision (Scotland) [Lords].

Afterwards, consideration of any Lords Amendments to Bills which may be received.

MONDAY, 27TH JULY—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have asked him for five weeks running when we are to get a statement from the Minister of Aviation about the VC10? Is he aware that we were given to understand that he would make a statement today; that this was printed in the Press? In view of the fact that almost daily we read in the Press, in the most intimate details, a statement of what the Minister of Aviation is going to tell his Cabinet colleagues to do—about the numbers affected and all the rest of it—will the right hon. and learned Gentleman either tell us what the rest of the Cabinet think about the Minister of Aviation or, at the very least, tell us whether we are to have this statement before the debate on civil aviation next week?

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman must not always believe what he reads in the Press. A statement will be made on Monday

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I do not always believe what I read in the Press about the Minister of Aviation; that all I believe is that this is what the Minister of Aviation wants the Press to believe, and not what the Cabinet has decided?

Mr. Lloyd: A statement will be made on Monday.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of


us appreciate the magnitude of the problem regarding the past mistakes of the administration of B.O.A.C., and that we want to be as helpful as possible, but will he convey to his colleagues in the meantime that a great many hon. Members, certainly on this side of the House, would not be prepared to accept a cancellation of the VC10 project?

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that up till now the minutes of evidence of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in regard to its Report have not been published? Can we have an assurance that they will be made available to us in ample time so that we may study them before the debate on civil aviation takes place on Wednesday?

Mr. Lloyd: I will look into that point.

Mr. Maude: In view of certain Press statements, can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he now expects, before the House rises, the Report of the Lawrence Committee on the remuneration of Ministers and hon. Members, and whether he himself has made any official proposals to that Committee?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "No, Sir". In view of what I had read in the Press, I asked Sir Geoffrey Lawrence about this matter and he wished me to make it clear that it was never expected that the Committee would report before the General Election and that it has not yet come to any decision on the matters referred to it.
In reply to the second point raised by my hon. Friend, I had no authority to make any proposals.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the Leader of the House say when a statement will be made about the situation of the new Scottish university, since it was understood that such a statement would be made today? Can he give the date when that statement will be made about where the university will be placed?

Mr. Lloyd: Not without notice.

Captain Orr: Do I take it from the fact that my right hon. and learned

Friend did not mention it in the business for next week that the Vestures of Ministers Measure is not being taken next week? If not, would my right hon. and learned Friend represent to the hon. Member who may be in charge of this Measure that there is a very large body of opinion in the House which thinks that it should not be—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question which the Leader of the House can be asked on the business statement.

Mr. Abse: Is it the intention of the Attorney-General to make a statement next week about the directive by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the subject of homosexuality? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in particular, realise the need for the House to have such a statement, since as recently as 1962, when I attempted to put this matter in legislative form, it was rejected by the Home Office? The House would like to know what are the circumstances which have caused this volte face.

Mr. Lloyd: I will see that my right hon. and learned Friend is made aware of what the hon. Gentleman has asked. I am not certain, but it is my impression that there are some Questions on the Order Paper about this subject.

Sir J. Arbuthnot: When does the Leader of the House expect to be able to find time for the Vestures of Ministers Measure? Does he expect that it will be at a reasonable hour of the day, so that it can be fully discussed?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer is not next week, but I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Captain Orr: On a point of order. A moment ago, Mr. Speaker, you ruled that when I asked my right hon. and learned Friend to bear something in mind about business, it was out of order. You have now allowed a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Sir J. Arbuthnot) asking that time should be allowed. I was merely asking almost the same question—that time should not be allowed, to meet the wishes of many hon. Members who feel that the matter should not be brought forward in this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: If I fell on the hon. and gallant Gentleman too soon, I much regret the matter. It seemed to me that the business aspect of the question was getting a little equipped with vestments.

Mr. Wade: Will there be a statement tomorrow, or early next week, on the subject of the Post Office workers' dispute? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on a problem which is causing some concern? A number of pensioners, including public service pensioners, receive their pensions by post. Could a statement be made as soon as possible about whether postal packages of that nature could be expedited, so as to avoid unnecessary hardship?

Mr. Lloyd: I am certain that my right hon. Friend will be aware of that matter.

Dame Irene Ward: Does my right hon. and learned Friend know when we are to have a statement about a nuclear ship, as promised, by the Minister of Transport, and, if so, whether we will be able to have a debate on it when we have it?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer to the first question is "No, Sir", and, until I know the answer to that, the second question does not arise.

Miss Herbison: Will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that a statement is made next week on the siting of the new university in Scotland? Is he aware that a telegram was handed to me only a few minutes ago from one of the leading Scottish educationists saying that the shilly-shallying of the Government over this matter was intolerable, since it might mean the loss of a whole academic year?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly discuss the matter with my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Loughlin: Reverting to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), did I understand the Leader of the House to refer to Questions on the Order Paper? If so, when he is considering what can be done to meet this situation next week, will he bear in mind that although some of us have Questions on this subject on the Order Paper, we cannot possibly reach

them, and it is, therefore, essential for the House to have a statement?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly bear that in mind.

Mr. W. Yates: Would the Leader of the House be good enough to read the Motions in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and myself?
Am I correct in saying that there will be no time for a further foreign affairs debate in this Session? If so, can the Leader of the House make certain that the Foreign Secretary makes a statement about the situation in South-West Arabia and the Yemen, because our businessmen do not wish to get unnecessarily involved in further complications in that part of the world?

Mr. Lloyd: There is no doubt that there will not be time for another foreign affairs debate, but I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will note what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Prior: On a point of order. I have signed some curious Motions in my time, Mr. Speaker, but I am not aware that I have signed the Motion which my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: We can refer to the Notice Paper in due course. Meanwhile, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be acquitted.

Mr. M. Foot: As the communiqué from the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference says that the future of Southern Rhodesia is a matter for the British Parliament, will not the Leader of the House either rearrange the business for next week, or guarantee to the House that there will be a full opportunity for a debate on Southern Rhodesia, and, in particular, the Prime Minister's reports about the representations made for the release of prisoners there, before the House of Commons rises at the end of July?
Does not the Leader of the House think that the best way to deal with this would be to have a debate next week, in view of the great urgency of this situation and of the necessity of the House hearing what representations the Prime Minister has made to Southern Rhodesia about the imprisonment of people without trial?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. There are three Supply days next week and one day on which will be debated the Reports on the nationalised industries, so that no time for another debate is afforded.

Mr. A. Lewis: As the business on Monday week is the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, is it not the case that, subject to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), concerning the Home Secretary's statement on homosexuality, police investigations into alleged bribery and corruption and illegal practices of various sorts, the action of the Home Secretary in the Kenneth de Courcy case, and other subjects, can be raised during that debate? As many hon. Members are anxious to raise the Spanish issue, is not that possible, too?

Mr. Lloyd: It is not for me to say what is in order.

Mr. Ross: Is the Leader of the House aware that one of the most successful aspects of his leadership of the House has been the respect which he has gained from the Scots by his willingness to be helpful about Scottish business? Is he aware that he is beginning to lose his touch?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman have another look at Tuesday's business? He will be aware that on that day the Scottish Grand Committee is meeting at half-past ten to deal with Estimates and that we shall then come to the House to hear Questions to the Prime Minister, fresh from his morning labours in the Committee. We are then to have a debate on Scottish trade and industry, the most important Scottish debate of the year, from half-past three to half-past nine and we are then to start on the Scottish Divorce Bill, which, when it was last in Committee, was discussed from half-past ten in the morning until two o'clock the following morning. Is it fair to take important Scottish business of this kind at half-past nine after a full day's work has already been done?

Mr. Lloyd: I am certainly in the hands of the House in these matters and I try to do my best to help Scottish Members, but the alternative might have been Friday and I thought that that might be even less convenient.

Mr. Rankin: A few moments ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), that he would require notice of a question about the new university for Scotland. A little later, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), he said that he would discuss with his right hon. Friends the question of giving an answer next week. Does he not appreciate that the House will rise in a fortnight? Can he assure me that we will get a statement about the siting of the new university before the House rises at the end of July?

Mr. Lloyd: I can answer only the question put to me, and the question was whether a statement was to be made next week, or whether I could announce the date of the statement, and I replied that I could not do so without notice.

Mr. Leavey: While not wishing to encourage racial prejudice at all, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he agrees that these last questions are an indication that we are spending a disproportionate amount of our time on Scottish affairs?

Mr. Speaker: This is a Supply Day, and the House will not like if if we use too much of it now.

Mr. Pavitt: With regard to the debate next Thursday on the family doctor service, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether we will get a report, or an interim report, from the Fraser Committee prior to that debate? If not, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that any information or evidence which the Minister may wish to use with regard to that Committee will be available to hon. Members on the back benches?

Mr. Lloyd: Once again, I cannot answer that question without notice, but I shall tell my right hon. Friend about it.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Is there any chance of my right hon. and learned Friend giving further consideration to Private Members' Bills, in particular my Bill entitled Civil Proceedings (Registration of Change of Address), which has reached its Third Reading stage?

Mr. Lloyd: I sympathise, not necessarily with the principle of my hon. Friend's Bill, but with the purpose of facilitating private Members in their legislative endeavours, but I cannot hold out much hope.

Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether next week, or before the House rises, there will be a statement and a debate on the constitutional and economic future of Malta?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot answer that today.

Mr. Pentland: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to a Motion on the Notice Paper in my name, about the General Election?

[That this House urges the Prime Minister to make an announcement forthwith about the date of the General Election in order to clear up the uncertainty created by the statement made by the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Parry on this matter.]

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister specifically invited me to raise this matter, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether it is the intention of the Government to have this matter debated before the House rises for the Summer Recess, or are we to understand that the Prime Minister will announce the date of the General Election within the next fortnight, bearing in mind that it has already become public knowledge that the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party has referred to 5th October as coming within the General Election time?

Mr. Lloyd: This is a matter which affects all hon. Members who may be submitting themselves again for election to this House. There are certain consequences of an official announcement of the date of the election, of which I think most hon. Members will not be unaware.

Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the clear and categorical statement on 2nd July, HANSARD cols. 1673–4, by the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) concerning the location of the Scottish University, that it would be announced by 16th July "at the latest", will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also make time for a personal statement

by the hon. Lady so that she can say why she has not fulfilled this promise?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. W. Hamilton: May I press the Leader of the House to answer that question in view of the great concern in Scotland as to the location of the new university? May I further raise two matters with him: first, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to the Divorce (Scotland) Bill which is to come on on Tuesday. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that during the Committee stage the ostensible sponsor of the Bill withdrew the two principal Clauses of it, one of which includes three additional grounds for divorce?
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) subsequently has sought, and will seek again next Tuesday, to put back that Clause with those three new grounds for divorce. I propose to add four more new grounds for divorce. There will, therefore, be no prospect of getting the Bill next Tuesday night, if at all.
Secondly, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to Motion No. 160 in my name, about the Prime Minister's dereliction of duty, not only in transferring Questions, but in making speeches in the House?

[This House strongly resents the contemptuous and arrogant way in which the Prime Minister deliberately evades his duty, as evidence by the facts, that in the last two months alone, up to 9th July, he has transferred to other Ministers 98 Questions addressed specifically to him, without giving any reasons for so doing, and that in nine months of office he has made only five speeches in the House, none of which has been on any major domestic issue, a record of comparative silence unequalled in British Parliamentary history; and calls on the Prime Minister, in the very brief time left to him, to show more enthusiasm in presenting his policies to the elected representatives of the people.]

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Prime Minister will be making a speech next week, or ever in this Parliament? His is the nearest approach to a Trappist monk that we have ever had.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman's desire for punishment seems to be obsessive.

Mr. P. Williams: Amidst the superfluity of Scottish business, is there any prospect of North-East business being debated today?

Mr. Lipton: May I ask the Leader of the House when the pledge that was given to the House by the Home Secretary is to be implemented? I refer to the further amendment to the Police Widows Pension Regulations.

Mr. Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement on the business for next week.

Mr. Swingler: While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is considering his answer about the Scottish university may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, when you will be in a position to give your ruling on the transfer of Questions and questions about transfers?

Mr. Speaker: On either Monday or Tuesday. I am sorry that I have not done it already, but to be frank I have been under heavy pressure of business during the last 72 hours, and I have not had time to do it.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I make a constructive suggestion—[Laughter.]—which does not merit the levity which the Government's supporters are showing? I wish to support the constructive suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about Tuesday's business and the difficulty which he has pointed out will occur if the Scottish business planned for Tuesday is taken on that day.
My suggestion is that the Leader of the House should transpose the business for Tuesday and Wednesday, and take the Kennedy Memorial business on Tuesday, and the Scottish business on Wednesday. That would be suitable to all parties. It is a constructive suggestion which I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider favourably.

Mr. Lloyd: I have some Scottish business for Wednesday night already.

Mr. W. Yates: Earlier, when I referred to a Motion I mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft

(Mr. Prior). I was mistaken. I was referring to an important Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell):

[That this House, in view of the continued presence of large numbers of Egyptian forces in the Yemen, in contravention of the Security Council resolution of 11th June, 1963, and of the increasing threat to international security and to British life and other interests in the Middle East, urges Her Majesty's Government to take effective measures to secure the withdrawal of Egyptian invasion forces.]

to which I have tabled an Amendment:

Line 2, leave out from Yemen, to end and add "urges Her Majesty's Government as a great international power, to forget all passed and trivial differences with the United Arab Republic and to endeavour to implement without question Resolution 1949 of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 11th December 1963 as the basis of discussion at the South Arabian Constitutional Conference now being held in London, and invites Her Majesty's Government to propose to the United Nations the creation of a small neutral United Nations Zone in North Yemen to become the state of the Iman, and, at the same time, to recognise the Republic of the Yemen following the example of members of the Commonwealth, and recommends that President Nasser should be invited to London at once to discuss any differences which might affect Great Britain's oil supplies and full employment in Great Britain or any other British Commonwealth interest in the Middle East.

I would be grateful if that could be noted.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that it will be.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Leader of the House will look again at the business for Tuesday. There is far too great a concentration of very important business on that day. It will probably be nearer ten o'clock before we start to discuss the Divorce (Scotland) Bill, because of all the Votes, and so on, which have to be put. The Bill started in life as a Private Member's Bill, but the only person in the Scottish Office who is pressing it is the Lord Advocate, who


is not a Member of the House. Will the Leader of the House think about this again? There is no reason why it should not be delayed. Why not let the Church of England come in that night and have "a bit of a barney"?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall consider any representations that are made to me, but I do not think that I am being unreasonable.

CYPRUS (MAJOR MACEY AND DRIVER PLATT)

4.17 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for the Army (Mr. James Ramsden): With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement about Major Macey and Driver Platt, who disappeared some weeks ago while serving with the United Nations Force in Cyprus.
The House will be aware that inquiries have been going on in Cyprus into the whereabouts of Major Macey and Driver Platt. I regret to have to tell the House that information has now come to hand from which it appears virtually certain that the two men are no longer alive. During the past 24 hours this information has been communicated to the United Nations and to the Cyprus Government. Urgent investigations are now in progress.
I have taken the earliest opportunity of informing hon. Members of the position, and I will keep the House informed. For the time being, however, it is important that nothing should be said which might prejudice the course of the inquiries.
We have been in touch with the next-of-kin early this morning, and the House will wish to join me in expressing our sympathy with them in their ordeal.

Mr. Healey: I am sure that the House will share the deep regret expressed by the Minister at the news which has been given to us and will wish to join in the expression of profound sympathy for the next-of-kin.
Can the Minister say whether the Government are satisfied that they are getting all possible help from the authorities in Cyprus in pursuing their inquiries?

Mr. Ramsden: I framed the statement with great care so as not to say anything which might prejudice any aspect of the

investigation, and I would rather leave my statement as it is. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand.

Mr. Kershaw: I shall not press my right hon. Friend to go further in view of what he said. I associate myself with the expression of condolences to the next-of-kin, but will my right hon. Friend note that many hon. Members are profoundly dissatisfied with the position as it is? We will watch the future negotiations and inquiries with great care.

Mr. Ramsden: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. The main thing is that the investigations are in urgent train and that they should be brought to an issue.

Mr. P. Williams: On a question of fact, can my right hon. Friend say what he means by "the authorities in Cyprus"? Does he mean the Cyprus Government, or the United Nations, or both?

Mr. Ramsden: I was not aware of having referred in my statement to authorities. I said that during the past 24 hours we have communicated the information that we have to the United Nations and to the Cyprus Government. I then said that urgent investigations are in progress.

BILL PRESENTED

JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL

Bill to vest in the United States of America a site at Runnymede forming part of the Crown estate to be preserved in perpetuity in memory of the late President John F. Kennedy for the use and enjoyment of the public under the control and management of the Trustees of the Kennedy Memorial Fund, presented by the Prime Minister; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Hogg, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[23RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1964–65

CLASS IV

VOTE 1. BOARD OF TRADE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,948,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments and agencies. [£2,650,000 has been voted on account.]

PROBLEMS OF THE NORTH-EAST

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move,
That a reduced sum, not exceeding £4,947,000, be granted for the said Service.
I am not particularly anxious to make a partisan speech. I shall shortly have plenty of opportunity to do that elsewhere, but in a sense it is unavoidable. During the 1959 General Election the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who was then Minister of Labour and a spokesman for the Government, came to Sunderland and assured my constituents that unemployment was a passing phase. This was an authoritative statement of Government policy, because the then Prime Minister said that the problem of unemployment was confined to particular districts and, again, that it was a passing phase.
What, then, is the position in Sunderland now? We have had this exceptional recovery during the past 12 months, and we have had this pre-election boom, yet unemployment figures are almost identical; in fact they are slightly higher than in 1959. Far from being a passing phase, since 1959 we

have had prolonged periods of substantial unemployment. We are now told not that a rate of unemployment of 5 per cent. is a passing phase but that a rate of 5 per cent. is the best that we can expect from temporary Tory prosperity.
This is not peculiar to Sunderland. It is equally true of far too many other black spots in the northern region. In fact, the unemployment position overall is almost the same as it was in 1959. Not only is this a direct political responsibility; this harsh disparity between the North-East and other parts of Britain is accentuated by the Government's indifference, and made worse still by their almost provocative prejudice. After months and months of procrastination we eventually had the Hailsham plan. This is now exposed as an amateurish, shoddy, inadequate document, which does not even claim to be a plan, and is not a patch on the Government's South-East Study.
It is the difference in character between these two plans that is thoroughly depressing to the people of the North-East. Some of the assumptions of the South-East Study are also depressing—for instance, the continued and increasing migration from the North-East. We know that between the census of 1951 and that of 1961, no fewer than 86,000 people migrated from the North-East coast. This migration is now running at a rate of about 12,000 a year. This is a continual drain on and an impoverishment of the North-East.
More than that, as I have explained in previous debates, it is a blow to the employment prospects of many of those remaining in the North-East, because today they are dependent upon the service, utility, supply and distributive industries. All this aggravates the problems of those who remain employed in the North-East. Over and above this, the North-East has especially suffered from the stop-go policy of the Government. When it has been in the "stop" phase the North-East has taken the brunt of serious unemployment. When it has been in the "go" phase, the "go" has been for too short a period to affect the basic problems of the North-East.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the best index in


this respect is industrial building—the building of new factories and extensions. I do not know what figures the right hon. Gentleman will produce, but we can examine the latest available Government information, and from it I pick out three factors which are particularly significant for the North-East.
First, we find that the rate of industrial building under construction in the northern region is lower than that of any other region in Britain except Wales. We find that industrial building in the North-East is only a quarter of the industrial building in the South-East.
Secondly, we find that industrial building in the northern region is much less than half of the industrial building under construction in the northern region in 1959. It is running at a rate of 3·8 per cent. of the total industrial building in Britain compared with 7·5 per cent. in 1959.
Thirdly, we find that industrial building completed in the North-East development area alone from 1945 to 1951 was not a mere 3·8 per cent. or 7·5 per cent. of all the industrial building in Great Britain—it was 12 per cent. These figures indicate the progressive deterioration of the position of the North-East. Now we have a good deal of window-dressing and a show of activity, similar to what we have had before on the approach to a General Election. Far more than this is needed if we are to deal with the problem of the North-East Coast.
Approvals alone do not provide work. What we need is continued pressure to translate the approvals into actual development as quickly as possible. I go further, and say that the actual development on the North-East Coast in itself is not sufficient. We have to take complementary action elsewhere. We have to supplement industrial development by the cancellation of vacant premises in the congested areas. We have to regard industrial development on the North-East Coast as part and parcel of national development.
Another thing that is becoming increasingly plain is that when we reach the "go" phase in the stop-go economy we get a relaxation of development. Let me give two recent illustrations. We learned this week about the £20 million truck assembly project for Ford's, which will employ 10,000 men in Scotland. I am

sure that that is very welcome to the people of Scotland. What surprised everyone was the apparent ignorance of the Government about what was happening. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take this occasion to tell us what he has done about this—what measures he has taken to persuade Ford's to go to the North-East. What we lack in the North-East, and have lacked for the past 10 years, is the introduction of a major new industry. What is most disturbing is the unconcern and indifference of the Government in this matter.
Let me e a second illustration. It is almost incredible, but a few years ago Sunderland was taken off the list of development districts. After the strongest political pressure it was put back, and not only was it put back but we got a decision to build an advance factory. That was a welcome decision. The factory is now completed, but it is standing idle. I want the right hon. Gentleman also to take this opportunity to tell us what steps have been taken to obtain a tenant for that factory.
Again, this is not altogether surprising—

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot (Cleveland) rose—

Mr. Willey: No, I will not give way, because I am very anxious that as many hon. Members as possible should be able to speak. I am always willing to give way but, as we started our debate late, it is important that we should get on with it. I know that hon. Gentlemen want to intervene because they may not be optimistic about their chances of an opportunity to speak, but I must not prejudice the chances of others.
I was talking about the advance factory at Sunderland. The position is not surprising, because we have the division of the North-East into different zones. It is true that Sunderland is fortunate in being in the growth zone, but we still have this great industrial town, with substantial unemployment, not recognised by the Government as a centre of expansion. This must affect industrial location. It must be more difficult to persuade industrialists to come to Sunderland if this distinction is made.
Quite apart from all that, however, I am not satisfied that this matter has been


pressed with sufficient vigour and enterprise. Again, this was not altogether surprising. This is not just a simple administrative job, but a promotional job. I am convinced that what is needed is an involvement. All my experience on the North East Trading Estates Company convinced me that behind all the persuasion and inducement there should be the pressure of the possibility of public investment.
There should be public investment, not only in factory building and in the building of trading estates but in production itself. The Government cannot logically claim to be doctrinaire about this—at any rate, not after Wiggins Teape. What is needed is more than the provision of factory space. What is needed is clear acceptance and recognition of the possibility of new industrial projects being launched, either in partnership between private and public enterprise or, in the last resort, by public enterprise itself. The problem in the North-East is a national problem, and there should be a national responsibility for it.
The problem in this part of the country is one of the people, but of the industrial structure. We have great basic industries that are employing a declining number of people. The coalmining industry has thrown up a redundancy of 12,000 since the last General Election. The National Coal Board has done a magnificent job on redeployment, but much more than this has to be done. This is a national responsibility. We must have the problems of West Durham, the Northumberland coalfields and Cleveland tackled as national responsibilities. We have not had this response from the Government, and we get repeated discouragement. In spite of all our pleas we have failed to impress on the Government the importance of building a new coal-fuelled power station in the North-East.
The same is true of shipbuilding. We did not get any response from the Government until very late in the day, when there had been a serious rundown in the industry. Now we have had inexpensive and temporary, though valuable aid for the industry. This is unsatisfactory, though no area has done better with it than the North-East, and

the Wear has done better than any river in the country. But the present aid is only a temporary palliative. The Government pretend that it is more and hope that it will see them through the election, but it will do little more. That is why there is general apprehension in the industry.
The Secretary of State seems very amused about this, but we are very serious about it in Sunderland. We face a position in which in the last two months, two important yards in Sunderland have finally closed—Austin's Wear Dockyard, and Short's. Incidentally I pay tribute to the Short family—here is a family that has run the yard for well over 100 years.
What disturbs the shipbuilding industry is what disturbs the North-East. We get no sense of national responsibility, but we are having to compete with countries where there is that sense of national responsibility for their shipbuilding industries. We got some concern recently about alternative work for the yards, but there has been very little development since. We got some encouragement as to the possibility of industrial building in the yards, but very little done.
What we need in the North-East is massive capital investment, and a simple illustration can be given of the neglect. We always talk about the industrial scars—the obsolete industrial derelict sites. In our last debate on the subject I exposed the pitiful sum devoted to this work. Recently, when I asked how much had been spent on this work, under the 1960 Local Employment Act, I got the reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that the amount was £30,000. In view of the need to tackle the problem, that is a paltry sum to make the appearance of the North-East much more presentable and attractive to incoming industrialists.
It is because of this lack of national effort that we get this distinction in the country, this division between the two nations—those who live in development areas—those who live in the North-East—and the rest of the country. I have already given one distinction—at the height of prosperity, Sunderland has 5 per cent. unemployed—but we get that disparity in every field. For instance, we


are all committed to equality of educational opportunity, but there is no equality of educational opportunity between the North-East and the rest of the country. The proportion of children in the South-East staying on at school after the compulsory school-leaving age is twice that in the North-East. This is the index of educational provision.
We have suffered just as much as other regions from Government cuts in school building. Durham County this year proposed a building programme amounting to £9¼ million; it was cut to £2¼ million. Northumberland proposed an expenditure of nearly £4½ million, and that was cut to just over £1 million. Newcastle proposed to carry out school building to the extent of £1 million—that was cut to £¼ million. Sunderland, as we might expect was more ambitious; we proposed to build schools to the value of £2¼ million, but that was cut to £320,000.
We find this attitude in every aspect of education. We are fortunate in the North-East in having 19 splendid technical colleges, but we have been badly let down by the Government because we are the only region that does not have a college of advanced technology. The North-East Development Council reports that this is not only a present drawback but, for the future, a factor of incalculable harm. We also suffer in industrial training. Again, far from having the benefit of Government assistance, we are prejudiced. We have less assistance than other areas. We have been neglected by the Government.
The report of the Development Council states:
The conjunction of a recession and the bulge was particularly savage in its effects in the North-East.
In spite of the structural changes in industry I have talked about, we have practically no provision being made for retraining. In fact, in every field, the North-East is prejudiced as compared with the rest of the country. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us about welcome increases in public investment in the North-East, but this is largely accounted for by increased road construction. This results from extending the improvement of the A.1. Surely no one ever thought that the new motorway would stop at Darlington. It is fortunate that we are now getting the

advantage of this capital investment, and improving the road through Durham and Northumberland, but it does not very much affect the position in the North-East as compared with the rest of the country.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is accustomed to saying that we ought to help ourselves. He often comes to the North-East and I am sure that not only is he welcome there, but that he is always impressed by the way in which the people of the North-East are always anxious to help themselves, and by how desperately we in the North-East try to jerk ourselves up by our bootstraps. I know, also, that the right hon. Gentleman employs the self-protective device of saying that if we reveal our difficulties we prejudice the solution of our problems and discourage incoming industrialists, but we have had to do this repeatedly throughout this Parliament because of the Government's unresponsive ear.
Fortunately, as I have said, we shall have shortly an opportunity of making our voices heard directly. I am sure that the verdict of the North-East will be that of the country—that what we need is a Government with dynamic resolve and purpose to deal at last with the problems of the development areas.

Mr. Ruper Speir: Has the hon. Gentleman read Cmnd. 2206? He suggested that there is a net migration from the region, but he will see from paragraph 10 of this White Paper that there has been no fall in the region's total population. Paragraph 113 shows that between now and 1981 a net rise in the population of the whole region is expected from 2,875,000 to 3,300,000.

Mr. Willey: I pointed out, which was accurate, that 86,000 left between 1951 and 1961 and that they are leaving at the rate of 12,000 a year now. This is a net migration and these are young people who ought not to be leaving their families, but who should be found work in the North-East where they were brought up.

4.42 p.m.

Viscount Lambton: We have all heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), but I should like to take a little further the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir), when he said that the


hon. Member was being a little unfair in the figures which he quoted. I agree that he was. Although he mentioned it in another part of his speech, I do not think that the hon. Member took into consideration the numbers of people withdrawn from the area because of the humane policy carried out by the National Coal Board in employing in other areas men who had been declared redundant. If to the 12,000 miners re-employed in different districts we add their family dependants the figure is not very far from that of the people withdrawn from the area of whom the hon. Member spoke.
Nor can I help saying that I think the hon. Member for Sunderland, North gave a false impression of the feeling in the North-East. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade would be justified in saying in reply that if the hon. Member continues to give an impression like this he will certainly throw cold water on the plans of those who are considering going into the area at this time.
The Conservative Government have put forward long-term plans for the North-East. None of these was put forward by right hon. and hon. Members opposite during their seven years of office after the war. They were perfectly content that the whole prosperity of the North-East should rest upon and the whole source of employment should depend entirely upon local industry. They made no long-term plans to absorb the miners when coal mines, especially in North-West Durham, closed down. The malaise in the North-East as a result of the closing down of coal mines must be ascribed to the fact that the party opposite laid no foundation for future industry during its term of office.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Will the noble Lord give way?

Viscount Lambton: No, for the reason given by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—that many other hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
Those who visit the North-East now will find the contrast between what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said and the great activity in that area. Sunderland is unrecognisable compared with what it was years ago. Where there was a mass of bad houses there is

now a totally different and promising town. Precisely the same can be said about Darlington, The Hartlepools and Middlesbrough. There is an air of energy and purpose about the North-East which was not there in the past.
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to a problem which in many ways accentuates the social difficulties facing the whole area, which is an area of reorganisation. The problem is the drift of population from the rural areas into the towns. It is not only a local problem. It applies universally to the whole of England, but I should like to draw attention to the situation in towns like Berwick-upon-Tweed and in the northern limits of eastern England. When my right hon. Friend the present Minister of State for Education and Science was in another place and was in charge of the problems of the North-East I remember his saying that the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed would benefit from the general prosperity of the industrial North-East.
It always seemed to me, considering the distance which separates Berwick-upon-Tweed from the populated areas to the south, that this was a somewhat optimistic assessment, and time has borne this out. The fact is that there still continues to be a drift of population from Berwick and the Northumberland countryside, and also an alarming decrease in the population of the county of Berwickshire despite the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade and by Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
My hon. Friends and I have tried our best to introduce light industry into the area, but although to a measure there have been successes this depopulation continues, both north and south of the Border and houses which are perfectly fit to live in are becoming tenantless in increasing numbers. This produces the dual problem that there are good houses empty and at the same time increasing queues of people waiting for houses in built-up areas where a housing shortage already exists.
I know that it is essential that we should build as many new houses as possible, but it is expensive and it is a considerable strain on the economy and we ought to consider the fact that the present


policy of drift in the countryside has this dual adverse result. The time has come when there should be an inquiry into the whole question of the depopulation of rural areas and indeed of country towns. I believe that such an inquiry would show that there is a sound economic case for further allocation of light industries to country districts and to small thriving agricultural towns.
I would go as far as to say that if something like this is not done in the next 10 years many country villages and towns which are at the moment thriving communities will cease to exist and will become instead stage towns which appear to be tenanted but in reality are hardly lived in at all. I hope that when the Government turn their further attention to the problems which still continue to face the North-East they will not neglect the question of the depopulation of rural areas especially since that very depopulation increases the strain on the more prosperous built-up areas in the North-East as a whole.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. William Stones: I hope the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument very closely. I should, however, like to refer to one criticism that he made of the Labour Government in the years between 1945 and 1951. He said that we had made no plan for absorbing the available manpower when the coalmines closed down. I would remind the noble Lord that the six years of the Labour Government followed six years of the most devastating war in history. We changed from a war economy to a peacetime economy without the chaos that followed under Toryism after the First World War.
Many problems have been mentioned today, but the first problem confronting any society, whether it be in the North-East or elsewhere, is the provision of food and protection from the elements. It is necessary for any community to organise its resources and to set up a Government which will ensure at least the provision of these elementary requirements. It follows that members of the community should expect to be provided with the opportunity to work. Any Government must bear this fact

in mind if the total resources of the community are to be utilised to the fullest advantage. I am not saying that we in the North-East have been denied the elementary provisions to which I have referred, but I am saying that the total resources of the North-East in men and material are not being utilised to the full. That is a disadvantage to the North-East and to the nation as a whole.
I have no desire to be guilty of tedious repetition or to bore the Committee with statistics, but I have represented a North-East constituency for years and I have drawn the attention of the Government to the fact that unemployment in the region is high. I agree that it is somewhat lower at the moment, but it is still double the national average, and the reduction in unemployment has resulted from the migration to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunder land, North (Mr. Willey) has referred. Thousands have left the North-East to work elsewhere in order to enjoy the amenities and comforts that modern society can provide, rather than live on the backs of their friends who are in work, and be satisfied with the bare necessities of life. I understand that there are still 42,000 unemployed in the region and that the number of school leavers this year in the North-East amounts to 4,000. I believe that of those who left school at the end of the last school-leaving term 600 are still without work.
This situation exists despite the much-vaunted Hailsham plan for the North-East. That plan provided for growth zones, to the exclusion of a great part of the North-East. When the plan was introduced, we on this side of the House complained and suggested that there should be a national plan governing the national economy, and that if any region required guidance and greater opportunities it should be treated as a whole and not in part. Whatever benefits may have accrued to the North-East as a result of the Hailsham plan, I am afraid that very little material benefit has been felt outside of the growth zone. In spite of new jobs provided in the North-East in recent years, we are not keeping pace with the demand for employment. Ministers talk of jobs in the pipeline and in prospect, but very often there are serious leaks in the pipeline and the jobs do


not materialise. We are not making real progress.
There are thousands of unemployed miners, engineers and constructional workers—a waste in skill if ever there was one. The situation would have been much worse had migration not occurred. If I may mention my own division, comparing the 1951 census with the 1961 census, there are 6,150 fewer people. The situation is much worse now as a result of the decline in the mining industry in my area. Hundreds have left the district in the last two years.
It seems that the Government are prepared to carry on with the present policy of migration instead of providing alternative employment. There is no development plan for Stanley which is in my constituency. The Ministry takes the view that in the light of the latest Government proposals, it is not possible to establish firm development policies for encouraging new employment in the North-East. Provision has been made by the Government for 3½ million people with 1 million immigrants expected, and many of them are expected from the North-East. Most of the jobs will be in manufacturing industries in the South-East. It seems that the Government's policy is to add to the present difficulty and congestion in these already congested areas. I know that we cannot expect a factory to be put at the end of every street or in every village, but I believe in a greater dispersal of industry in every region. Concentration of industry means greater traffic problems on our already overcrowded roads, aggravated in certain districts by rail closures, and this means that it takes more time for workers to travel to and from their employment at an extra cost.
At the North-East Development Conference, in reply to a question, the Minister said that the plan would provide for the whole of the region including North-West and West Durham. Two or three weeks ago when I asked whether there was any plan for advance factories in my division I was given the answer, "None at all". That was a contradiction of the earlier reply that had been given. When we complain of the disadvantages of being outside a growth zone, the Minister falls back on the fact that we are still regarded as a

development district. Words are not sufficient. We want development. We want new industries and further development.
Up to the present we in the Consett division have had very few new jobs provided. I know that the unemployment figures are down, but this is because of migration, and the situation will certainly worsen when there are further mine closures, whether partial or whole. For the younger people migration from the area is probably not so serious, but for men 50 years of age, probably with chest conditions resulting from many years in the mines, it is very serious to be made redundant. It is not right to expect those people to migrate.
If we are to prevent this situation becoming further aggravated in the North-East, the national economy must be so geared that it can expand constantly and continuously, rather than spasmodically. It is wrong to expect workers in the North-East who have lost their jobs to migrate, and I am sure that most people will agree that work should be provided for them in their area. I have no desire to enter into a wrangle as to which part of the North-East should get the most benefit from the North-East Plan. I wish to see a reasonable level of industrial activity maintained outside the growth zone, particularly in North-West and West Durham.
If we are to avoid the problems of declining industries and automation—and I am sure that automation is necessary for many industries in the North-East—the Government, Tory or Labour, must apply their minds to providing work for redundant workers, not 200 miles away but where they live. To do this the Government must be very firmly instrumental in issuing industrial development certificates. Every effort must be made to encourage industries to go to the North-East, even if this means a greater financial inducement than already provided. When workers are required to leave one industry for another we must extend retraining facilities as far as possible. I know that we are now making progress in regard to technical colleges, and these are essential to enable persons to acquire the necessary skill. If the Government can do


anything at all to assist the Tyneside in the building of a new "Queen" this will be very greatly appreciated.
We have long expected a new power station in the North-East. We are told that Durham coal can be utilised where-ever the power station can be erected. We would feel much more sure of that market if we had the power station built in the North-East. As these things depend largely on steel, our steel industry, which I am glad to say has now recovered to a large degree, would also benefit.
The first requirements in the North-East are industry and employment. We are told how necessary it is that we should improve our lines of communication, roads, etc., where necessary, to make the countryside more attractive to industrialists. This means large expansion, and the authorities outside the growth zone are not quite sure whether large sums of public money expended in such a way would have the return that is expected. At least some guarantee should be given to them that industrial development and fuller employment would result in the not too distant future. The authorities in the growth zones have these guarantees.
I urge the Government to set at rest the minds of the local authorities outside the growth zones by planning not just for the growth zones but for the whole of the Northern region.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): I understand that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) moved an Amendment to the Motion while the attention of the Chair was temporarily diverted and the Question was not proposed. I will now propose it.

The Question is, That a reduced sum, not exceeding £4,947,000, be granted to Her Majesty for the said Service.

5.1 p.m

Mr. Paul Williams: I am probably making the first speech that is in order.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was, I think, very reasonable in most of what he said. He might be unreasonable in some of the things that he said, but this we do not take exception to in the slightest. He was a little unreasonable in making com-

Parisons between the Hailsham plan and the plan for the South-East, in that the Hailsham plan is in existence and operating whereas the plan for the South-East is a long-range plan for the future. The real point is that we are now operating on the basis of the Hailsham plan and we can see the results coming from it. He also talked about window-dressing in a pre-election boom. If this is a pre-election boom, let us live in the pre-election period all the time There is no doubt at all that the North-East is recovering, and the question that we are really discussing is whether this recovery can be sustained or not.
In the years since the war, successive Governments have had to face the problems of a period of expansion and hesitation about whether we could pay for the imports we need and then a period of retraction and control of the economy. At last I believe there is a chance of success in making the break-through from these periodic booms and pauses if we can see ourselves through what is bound to be a difficult period in the autumn from the point of view of balance of payments, import costs and recovery in the export market.
There is no reason why we should not, if we can overcome this problem nationally, be able to match up to the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, namely, that of the two nations. I accept, with him, that we have this problem of two nations, which needs to be resolved. I believe that we cannot possibly resolve it until we admit that it exists. I think that the Government policy in the Hailsham plan shows that they accept that there are different standards in different parts of the country which need to be evened out.
I was, however, rather interested in that the hon. Gentleman made not one reference to the I.D.C. policy, which has been one of the items at the core of Labour Party attack on the Government in recent years. It may well be that they have taken to heart the words used in the North East Development Council's Third Annual Report, 1963–64, which were as follows:
Evidence of a stricter application of I.D.C. control was considerably more convincing this year".
There are some escape clauses after that, I concede, but it is the truth that I.D.C.


policy has become more convincing in moving industry away from the crowded South-East into the deserving North-East and other parts of the country. I shall not be provocative enough to make too much of a comparison between the two parties, but I personally believe that persuasion is the right way to get industry to come to the North-East and that direction is wrong. But in the end it is enterprise, and enterprise by business, which will solve the problems of the North-East.
We in the North-East have to welcome change more readily than we do at the moment. The change that is taking place is both in the short and long-term of advantage to the whole region. I quote three categories of examples. In Sunderland, the great firm of Doxfords have produced a new "J" engine which is of great significance in the marine engineering field. Here is an enterprise which is based on the North-East, was conceived in the North-East, and which will come to success in the North-East. It is the sort of story that we in the North-East need to tell repeatedly to restore the self-confidence which is vital for the future success of the whole region.
The second category of enterprise for success which I would quote would be the two firms which have come to Sunlerland in recent months, Hepworth & Grandage and Perdio. Here are two new industries coming to the North-East and providing that spread of industry which is vital for a balanced economy and as an insurance against unemployment.
The third category is the expansion of firms which are already in the area or which have recently come to the area. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned Short's shipyard. I would mention the other half of the category, Steels' engineering concern which before the war was not the largest of concerns in the Kingdom by any means but which through enterprise, effort and energy with the resources of management and skill of workers has developed into one of the larger engineering concerns in this land. Here is a firm which has been able to expand into a shipyard which was closed. This is the significance of what is happening in the North-East: as older industries either hit a rough patch or go

into decline, there is something new which can come in and fill the vacuum to provide employment and security.
Similarly, one of the new post-war firms, David Brown, which, I suspect, came with a measure of reluctance in the first place, has decided, once having come, to put the whole of its gear cutting division in Sunderland. This is another outward sign of the success of the policy of persuading people to come rather than directing them. There is also the expansion going on in Ericsson Telephones, a member of the Plessey Group. Brian Mills, a mail order firm which is progressing at a great rate of knots both in Sunderland and elsewhere in the country is another example.
Those are three categories of enterprise which show the success of both indigenous industry in the North-East and industry which has come in.
We are primarily reliant, of course, upon our three basic industries, steel, shipbuilding and mining. The three steel plants in the North-East are working at or very nearly capacity. I was most interested to read a report in the financial columns of the Sunday Express only last week:
How splendidly the North-East is recovering from its depression. The three steel works there are running at or near capacity, capital industry is picking up, and there is the promise ahead of benefits to come from oil searches going on out to sea. All that is needed now is a strong twist from heavy to light industry.
All of us here from the North-East will agree with that.
A sheet steel plant, for instance, to serve the motor and consumer trades. I predict that this will come about before long. Overall, Britain's sheet steel output is working at 90 per cent. of capacity, and a new mill will soon be necessary.
I am delighted by the next sentence:
It is bound to go to the North-East.
I put this question to my right hon. Friend: is it bound to come to the North-East, or are we to be plagued, as we were earlier today, with a plethora of questions from Scotland about it? I give notice that, if a development of this kind is to take place, it is our hope that the Prime Minister's weight will be thrown in favour of the North-East this time, not Scotland.
I come now to some specific questions which I have to put to my right hon.


Friend. First, as to housing in the North-East and, more particularly, in Sunderland, it has always seemed to me that a growing town such as Sunderland should have scope to grow at a reasonable rate provided that it does not encroach too far into the green belt or anything like that. Sunderland has had an application in for extra land for housing for some time now, and a lot of us in and around Sunderland are fed up with the long time being taken to decide the issue. The question of land for housing is the sort of matter which should be settled urgently, and I ask my right hon. Friend to find out, if he can, when the Minister of Housing intends to take the only practical decision, that is, to sanction the purchase of land by Sunderland for housing purposes.
Next, a question about Tube Investments in Washington, not the new town. This development has been forecast for many a long month. I understand that Tube Investments may have certain hesitations about coming at the moment, resulting, perhaps, from the marketing of its products not having gone quite according to plan. But if this land is available, it should now be used as land for development by other companies coming into the North-East, for it is an ideal site to provide employment not only for Tyneside, if need be, but for Wearside and even for parts of County Durham.
This leads me, naturally, to ask my right hon. Friend about progress with the new town of Washington. We have had the inquiry. I regard this as an urgent matter for the North-East, in furtherance of the Government's theme of tackling our problems by providing growth points. We should very soon have a decision about the new town and work should go forward quickly.
Next, education. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, mentioned this, and I mention it again, as we have done in past debates. Sunderland Technical College, with some good reason, feels slighted. The time has not yet arrived for it to be classified as a technological university, because this depends on the U.G.C. and the results of the Robbins Report, but it would be a very great advantage to the whole region to have a further recategorisation—perish the word—of Sunderland Technical College.
I particularly ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether the port facilities of the North-East are adequate. I have put to him a plan submitted to me by a Sunderland man not long ago for a rather grandiose expansion of our port facilities. The current argument is that Tees-port should be able to cope with future needs. But only last week the chairman of the major shipbuilding concern in Sunderland made clear that the future expansion of the capacity of his shipbuilding yard was limited by the scope of the port.
This is a dangerous situation from the point of view of both the port and the shipbuilding industry. In the North-East we have scooped the majority of the orders which have come out of the credit scheme, and Sunderland has scooped the majority in the North-East. Our problem now is that our capacity is limited not by the resource and enterprise of industry but by the natural hazards of too shallow a port entrance. I ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, to look again at the plans which I have submitted to him and the possibility of the port of Sunderland being expanded not only for the improvement of shipping facilities but also to meet the needs of the shipbuilding industry.
I turn next to the question of retraining facilities. In the era into which we are moving, we need more retraining facilities. We need more mobility of labour. Lest the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Stones) should think that I am talking about a flow away from the region, I say at once that I am talking about a cross-movement of population throughout the nation. One of the most dangerous attitudes of mind we can have in this country is that people, by being born in a particular place, are automatically stapled down there for the rest of their life. We must have more mobility of labour, and we must have a greater readiness to change jobs, and this means greater support by the Government in the implications of such a policy. Severance pay, payments for movement from one part of the country to another, maintenance of rates of pay for, perhaps, three months—many such things are needed if we are to have that mobility. Moreover, we should not be reticent about it.

Mr. E. Shinwell: May I intervene?

Mr. Williams: There is not much time and I think that I should get on.

Mr. Shinwell: I wanted to refer to the hon. Gentleman's comments about what was said about migration by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett.

Mr. Williams: A few moments ago, I was talking about our three basic industries. Steel is at capacity or near capacity. Our shipbuilding industry is effecting a recovery which, one hopes, will be a launching pad to further success. The yards which are closed nearly always lose men to other yards which take them on. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned Shorts and Austins. Nearly all the men from Shorts were employed elsewhere in the yards and the men from Austins were taken on by another yard, Pickersgill's. This is the sort of thing which is bound to happen in a developing and expanding economy, and I, for one, welcome it. One always regrets the ceasing of activity by old businesses, but if the consequence is to give greater strength to new and expanding businesses, it is, I think, worth while.
I turn now to our other basic industry, mining. As we all admit, this is an industry which went through considerable difficulties in the years after the war, but I think that we all agree on both sides now that it is settling down to about the right size and about the right level of production and with the most welcome aggressive attitude to sales, the only way to secure employment.
Of course, one of our problems in the North-East—basically, this is what we are talking about today—is the problem of employment. This is why I welcome the paragraphs on page 21 of the North-East Development Council's annual report which say:
Since March of last year the North East economy has been moving through a period of recovery, and if that recovery is maintained until the autumn, then we should have regained the ground lost since the recession began in 1961. If the recovery keeps on after autumn, then we shall be making real progress and we can even get to a lower level of unemployment than was established in 1956".
I think that this is an honest appraisal of the position. We have been through

a difficult period, but we are recovering. Providing this recovery can be sustained, we will achieve a standard of living in the North-East more comparable with that of the rest of the country.

Mr. Shinwell: By the autumn?

Mr. Williams: The point is to keep the recovery going in the right direction. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) must know this perfectly well. This was the object of my opening remarks.
It seems to me that one of the things which the North-East Development Council needs to do is to cast its net a shade wider. We have convinced ourselves in the North-East that we are on the right road. We are convincing the rest of the country that we need to go to the next stage and to sell the advantages of the North-East overseas.
Our three basic industries are in a reasonable situation. Expansion is taking place in the newer and lighter industries which is providing stability for the future. We hope that we can sustain this if the national economy can be kept on the right lines. I should have thought that if we could distil out our own partisan emotions we would have the basis for reasoned optimism for future prosperity in the North-East.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. James Boyden: I am sure that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) will have an opportunity after October of practising the occupational mobility which he advocates for others.
I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman referred to the Hailsham plan. I do not think that the civil servants who drew up the document were as rash as to call it a plan. There are many words in it which deprecate the precision of a plan. Page 35 states;
It is possible now to sketch out very roughly some of the ways in which the regional pattern might develop in keeping with the measures for regional growth, and an indication of these is given in the paragraphs below. It must be emphasised that the figures put forward are all very approximate and are merely attempts to show the possible scale of the trends envisaged. They are neither predictions nor proposals".
It seems a great pity that in order to shorten the description of the document it is called a plan, because time and


again the writers of the document dissociate themselves from that description. I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that the document is such a childish and amateurish effort that it is not even the putting together of the local authority development plans which have been submitted over the years.
In the last General Election, in my contest, the Conservative opponent had only five points in his election address. One of these was the reduction of unemployment. This promise turned out to be the Local Employment Act, which had this effect in my constituency. Month after month the unemployment figures for the travel to work area went up and up. At the same time, the migration figures to the South-East and London also went remorselessly up and up. Sometimes the figures even went against the seasonal trend.
We can, therefore, thank the Local Employment Act for the fact that anything from 2,000 to 4,000 people in my constituency who should have had jobs have been kept out of work practically from then until the development of the programme which we are talking about today.
If Ministers read anything in HANSARD except their own speeches, they must have known very well the facts of the situation in the North-East and in South-West Durham. This Hailsham gimmick is nothing more or less than an attempt to create pretentious ideas in an effort to save the marginal seats of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and other hon. Members opposite. It is not a plan but a cross between a personality cult and a circus. Lord Hailsham, as he then was, was the best gimmick, so it was thought, that the Conservative Party had.
The document, even on such things as administration, deprecates its own conditions of performance. Paragraph 127, "Administration", states:
Implementing all these plans will take time, and full results will take even longer. It will be necessary to watch progress closely, to keep plans flexible, and to be prepared to adjust policies in the light of changing circumstances. This means a continuing study of the development of the region as a whole".
This takes me back to the clichés of Marie Corelli at her height; we only need "every avenue to be explored". to complete the picture. I hope that the right

hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will refer to that when he winds up.
There is another rather delightful phrase in the document. It says:
Most of the North-East enjoys clean rivers".
Then it goes on to say that the main exceptions are parts of Tyneside and Tees-side—that is where most of the population live. I should be a little surprised if the Coquet, the Bollihope or the Maize Beck were dirty. It is a blinding thought that the Tyne and Tees and possibly Wear might be dirty.
I remember in my days of local government in Durham the constant battles of local authorities who had defective sewerage schemes to try to get money from the Government for improving them. Only latterly has attention been turned to this matter and is money becoming available.
"Growth zone" is really an advertising phrase for the General Election. It is full of anomalies. Let me deal with Newton Aycliffe. I am not against it, but it is not an economic concept; it is a social concept. When it was started there was a redundant armaments factory there and nothing else. There are no economic factors in favour of Aycliffe. There were no communications when it was started. There was nothing there at all except the idea of houses for people living in bad housing conditions in my constituency. This is a very good idea. I am not criticising it, but it is not a growth point except inasmuch as artificial stimulus is applied to it to build up the factories, which can be applied just as well to St. Helen's Dabbleduck and Barnard Castle, to which Glaxo was induced to go by my predecessor the late Hugh Dalton. One could go on pointing out that there are many growth points which could be developed in West and South West Durham which are retreated from because the Government have a kind of obsession about Aycliffe as a new town.
Bishop Auckland is the commercial capital and transport centre of a fairly considerable area. The anomaly is that Aycliffe is in the growth zone, yet a good deal of its commerce and shopping and a great deal of transport is centred on Bishop Auckland, which is out of the growth zone. Much of the labour force is compelled to travel from Shildon to Aycliffe, but Shildon is not in the growth zone. [Interruption.] I can imagine what


the hon. Gentleman is saying—that naturally my constituency is anxious because it is not in the growth zone, that I am trying to contradict myself by saying that the growth zone is a good thing. Of course it is better than leaving things alone, but it is extremely bad for places outside it. The only consolation we have is the principle of "slop over". The Minister says that we shall benefit in due course from the development in the other areas. If he knew anything about local government in these parts, he would know that already some of the local government activities in my area have been prejudiced by more money being voted for other areas.
Let me give a particular example. We have a very ancient grammar school in Bishop Auckland which has been converted into a joint school for boys and girls. Nothing has been done, apart from the minimum, to make the school a really effective viable unit because the money and attention necessary to do this is going into Aycliffe. We have in an area which is not even a development district, Barnard Castle, only half a grammar school because Barnard Castle is at the bottom of the priority list.
For further anomalies one wants to look at the map, Appendix 3. I think it is Map No. 2. I admit that hon. Members cannot see it very easily, but the cartographer who drew it must have been drunk, because the boundary zigzags in and out and finally ends up in the green fields of Piercebridge. Piercebridge is in the growth zone, but the development of Upper Teesdale, of which Piercebridge is at the end, is much more difficult than the development of Piercepoint.
As hon. Members opposite know full well, the difficulties of these rural areas are very great indeed. I am very sorry to see that the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) is absent, because he echoed a sentiment very much in our minds about rural areas. I have heard Liberal hon. Members and hon. Members on the benches opposite complain about the lack of policy for rural areas. My particular constituency suffers similarly.
I am going to quote not politicians but planning officers, who are usually very netural about politics and I refer to Mr. Ross, the Northumberland planning

officer, who says this about the rural drift and lack of determination to build up these areas:
In Northumberland we have 100,000 people north of the River Blyth not getting fair play. They are entirely cut off from assistance.
And the county planning officer at Durham, Mr. Atkinson, says this about South-West Durham:
Whilst the Government has said that its plans for the South-East will not affect the employment proposals for areas like the North-East the fear must be that in practice the recent strong trend might well become increasingly difficult to control and that a landslide in favour of the South-East is a real possibility. The proposed new cities and expansion of towns will be powerful magnets and the proposed Channel Tunnel will add to these attractions. It was not fanciful to think that many firms anxious to develop in the South-East rather than elsewhere would postpone making commitments which might otherwise have been expected for development in areas like the North-East until they see whether controls are going to be relaxed in the South-East.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have not convinced the country that the policy of stop-go is off permanently. The building materials industry is an indication of that at the moment. Mr. Atkinson goes on to say:
In West Durham, the Government was proposing a static population. It was suggested that travel to work would be possible from these areas to the prosperous growth zones. On this basis I am very doubtful whether the Government is facing the issue squarely enough.
We resent bitterly being cast in the rôle of a travel-to-work area, an area from which we have all got to go out, and we resent it particularly when the Government are busy closing the railway lines. As for the road programme, somewhere in the Report it says that roads are basic to the whole concept, and yet the only road we have is the road to get out of Teesdale. When I ask about developing the tourist attractions of Teesdale I am told that the Darlington by-pass will help people to get to other places—no doubt Redcar or Roker. But it will do nothing for Teesdale. When I ask about hotel development, I am told that there are no applications. As I say, we resent very bitterly indeed being cast in the rôle of a travel to work area.
It is not that industry cannot be rehabilitated. During the period of the Labour Government, when Hugh Dalton


was responsible for a good deal of economic administration, good trading estates were built which are today the mainspring of the area. The Government have just discovered that they have not got sufficiently accurate statistics to do much about derelict land. It has taken three years of campaigning to get them to admit that they do not know the figures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, the development of derelict land was practically negligible. The drive to level pit heaps, to clean the rivers and to plant up areas of dereliction, and even to use them for housing, are some of the things that ought to be an absolute must. The Government ought to get their figures right and take a more determined line in conjunction with the local authorities to do this.
A considerable amount of South-West Durham is not as attractive as it was in the past, and this is due to the development done by people who have made their fortunes and departed.
Then there is the plight of the "D" villages, where nothing is being done. This causes great distress to the people concerned with this problem.
I reckon that about 4,000 people in South-West Durham have not been provided with the jobs that they ought to have had over the last four or five years. Assuming that their wages might have been on average £750 a year, I reckon that the Tories have cost South-West Durham something of the order of £3 million a year. I am certain that even some of the Tories in my constituency do not think that that price is worth paying.

5.36 p.m.

Commander J. S. Kerans: Like other hon. Members, I propose to speak about my constituency. I agree with a lot that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) has said about roads, a matter to which I will refer a little later in my speech. I propose to concentrate on my constituency because we still have 5·1 per cent. of unemployment there. In October, 1959, the figure was 5·9 per cent., and the maximum was 12 per cent. Therefore, we still have the problem of unemployment. When we lost Gray's shipyard in 1951 it was a major disaster for the North-East.

On top of that there is the perennial problem of school leavers. We never quite seem to catch up with that problem, though in recent months the situation has been slightly easier. Some of the school leavers have been absorbed into some of the smaller industries.
The one thing which is vital for The Hartlepools and for the whole of South-East Durham is the question of communications. There is no doubt that we are off the beaten track. The roads are perfectly all right on the A.1, but the bilateral cross roads are not so good and it takes much of one's time to get to one's destination. Until and unless we have these roads we cannot expect industry to come to the area. It is as simple as that. I dare say that a certain amount of work is being done on the A.19 and on the A.689 line via Greatham, but we do not know the starting date of the Greatham bypass.
I put down a Question the other day to ask if any decision had been taken in connection with this matter. I was told that some roads have been passed for the 1965–66 programme. That is not good enough. If we have to wait all that time industry will not come to the area.
Again, there is the question of the railways. There are very few trains direct to my constituency. I think that there are something like two a day either way. That is not good enough for business men who have to change at Darlington and Thornaby. The journey takes two hours, and Thornaby is not a very desirable station on which to spend an hour.
I wish to refer to the future of the Middleton St. George airfield. This, I understand, has been turned over from the Royal Air Force, but apparently there is some wrangling going on about the financial requirements of the Government concerning this airfield. Surely, these difficulties can be ironed out quickly, because once we get a viable airport in the area the business men will come there.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) for setting up Pitch Fibres Limited on the edge of my constituency, which is shortly going into production. My hon. Friend was the first one to take advantage of the Government's incentive schemes of that type. We also


have in the constituency an industrial development officer who looks after those operations. It is a full-time job. He gets around and entertains business people from London and elsewhere and advertises the area. When I say the area, I do not mean just my constituency but the whole of the south-east area. One cannot, of course, expect to get everything in one small area.
I should like to know from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether there has been a speeding-up in dealing with B.O.T.A.C. applications. How long does it now take from the word "go" to issue a B.O.T.A.C. certificate? At one time, it was a lengthy process.
I also have in the centre of my constituency a very large area where, for 13 years, there has been wrangling about where the new shopping centre should be. This is a matter which has been raised in party politics from both sides during all that period and it is high time that a decision was made one way or the other about where the shopping centre is to be located. Representatives of a firm came to the constituency with the idea of taking over a site, and they brought their wives with them. Their wives were so appalled by the lack of shopping facilities that, in the end, they decided not to come. It would be unfair to mention the name of the firm, but this is one instance of which I am aware. Decent shopping facilities are vital to the area as a whole, but we have a long way to go yet. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can speed up matters with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government so that an early decision will be taken which will make it possible to go ahead.
Another factor which does not help the area very much is some of the I.T.V. and B.B.C. programmes, and some of the Press articles also, which continue to denigrate the Durham area. They pick out the worst and highlight it and they do not show some of the first-class aspects of the area. This has happened on more than one occasion and it continues time and time again.
The possibility was recently mentioned in The Times of a major motor-car industry coming to The Hartlepools or to South-East Durham. I do not know

where the rumour originated; possibly it was from a local committee. A large major industry is just the sort of thing that we want in the constituency. From it, the smaller growth industries could branch out. We have 100 acres of land available and there is a good deal more outside the constituency. There are another 150 acres in the Stockton Rural District. Something like a motor-car industry is just what we want in that part of Durham. I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has any idea whether an application has been made or whether such a possibility is likely to come about.
Another unfortunate event in my constituency, following the loss of various contracts and of Gray's shipyard, is that some of the skilled labour has left the area and I regret to say that I do not think it will return. This is part of the migration drain which has been mentioned by hon. Members opposite on more than one occasion today.
I welcome the fact that the South Durham Iron and Steel Co. is doing extremely well. It recently had a £2·6 million order for pipelines in Libya. For the first time since the plant was completed, every section is in full production. I started life working on that site and it is a disappointing thought that some of the most modern machinery did not come into use until the early part of this year. I am happy to say that the company is now working full shifts.
I should like to know from my right hon. Friend wkether he can ensure that the firm of Richardson-Westgarth, heavy engineers, will get further orders from the Central Electricity Generating Board. As my right hon. Friend may recall, the loss of the order for the Wylfa project last year was a serious blow. It was the first time that a Government had broken a contract or had withdrawn the go-ahead when very large sums of money have been involved. There has been mention of a refinery coming to Tees-side. Wherever it comes, it will be welcome, because it will not only provide added employment in building, but its establishment and operation would be for the enhancement of the area.
I should like to know from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether improvements can be made to The Hartlepools harbour. It is a first-


class harbour and we have had many promises that coaling staithes will be modernised and rebuilt. We lack sufficient deep-water berths. A heavy timber trade, especially from Russia, is now using the harbour, but until we have first-class port facilities we cannot expect to attract a great deal more trade to the area. The people concerned are doing very well at the moment, but I should like my right hon. Friend to impress upon the Ministry of Transport and other appropriate Departments the need to make an early decision in this connection.
Although progress has been slow, I welcome the outline of the plan for the North-East. We are going ahead slowly, but we still have a long way to go to improve the area. The quicker that decisions can be made, the better for everybody concerned. I welcome the large public investment which the Government have put into the area. We are getting results and things are beginning to look up. The battle is to beat the birthrate and the continual movement of population away from the area. That is the fulcrum of the whole issue.

5.46 p.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: This may be the last time that the hon. and gallant Member for the Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) speaks for the North-East in the House of Commons, as I understand that he is not seeking re-election for The Hartlepools. I am sure that everyone in the North-East will remember the many times he has barked mightily at the Government. Possibly, his bite might have had rather more effect had it been made from this side of the House.
The figure of migration which the hon. and gallant Member quoted from the Hailsham Report was not, in fact, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) had said. If the hon. and gallant Member refers to paragraph 27, he will see that the Report suggests that 4,000 male workers leave the North-East each year and that the figure might drop to 2,500. What has happened is that the figure of 4,000 has doubled to 8,000 male workers a year leaving the North-East.
There are many other respects in which the serious inequalities between the North-East and the rest of the country

have not been mentioned. There is worry in the North-East that the Government rely simply upon the criteria of employment. If the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade looks at his last Annual Report on the working of the Local Employment Act, he will see it stated at paragraph 4 that the minimum unemployment rate which should be regarded as high was 4·5 per cent. for the purposes of the Local Employment Act and the scheduling of development districts. The Hailsham Report on the North-East states that the removal of a locality from the list of development districts
will require strong evidence of a general and sustained improvement in employment in the region as a whole".
Will the Secretary of State define more clearly what he means by that? Does he mean that if unemployment in the area as a whole is likely to remain below 4·5 per cent., we can expect massive de-scheduling of areas in the North-East? This is a great worry in view of the temporary fall in unemployment.
A much more significant criterion of economic activity is the proportion of the population in employment. The figure for the North is only 40 per cent. compared with 52 per cent. in London and the South-East. To bring the activity rate in the North up to the level of the South-East would need an immediate 400,000 jobs, which is absolutely outside the range of anything that the Government have ever considered. The Hailsham Report completely dodges this question of the activity rate. Again, we see that the average income per head in the North is only £240 as compared with £300 in England as a whole—and this was in 1959–60, when the North was relatively prosperous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has referred to the educational provision. What about the children coming out from school? In Middlesbrough, they leave school tomorrow. Let us compare the position between Middlesbrough and a more or less comparable community in, say, Battersea. In Middlesbrough, 800 boys will be leaving school tomorrow; in Battersea, 960. In Middlesbrough there are already 200 boys unemployed and looking for jobs. In Battersea there are


only 36. The immediate vacancies available for boys in Middlesbrough are only 20 and in Battersea they are 274. It is expected that in Battersea all school leavers will be in jobs by the end of the holidays, the beginning of September. In Middlesbrough it is expected that 500 of the 800 boys will still be looking for jobs at the end of October. This is a scandalous situation, which is typical of the whole of the North-East.

Mr. Speir: It certainly is not.

Dr. Bray: In considering the prospects for school leavers, I ask the Secretary of State to make inquiries of youth employment officers this week about their views on this matter. The Ministry of Labour is trifling with tiny little training schemes, waiting for the industrial training boards to grind into action, while at the same time it has the cheek to tell employers that they ought not to wait for training boards but should get on with the training and they would find it worth while in the end. Why is not the Ministry of Labour doing it?
The Secretary of State should look to the contribution which he could make to the problem. He would find the Industrial Estates Management Corporation able to play a very useful part in this rôle. In particular, he will find that the new estate at Thornaby is eager to get on with providing training facilities straight away. I feel that this would be a valuable selling point in attracting industrialists to the estate. This is a matter for the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade. Will he look at it himself and not just leave it to the Ministry of Labour, which is not responsible for attracting industrialists to these estates?
The Government may argue that there is a long way to go—I do not think that the Secretary of State will dispute that—but that we are on the way. What is happening? The fall in unemployment in the North-East has been due to the very rapid rate of industrial expansion in the country as a whole over the last few months—a rate of expansion which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly said we cannot maintain without running into a balance of payments crisis. I should be happy to go a good deal further than any Government spokes-

man has gone about the North-East; on Tees-side in particular I think that unemployment will fall to a very low level when the present enormous construction boom reaches a peak in 1965 or the beginning of 1966.
In the first quarter of 1964 no less than 25 per cent. by value of the new orders for construction for manufacturing industry for the whole of Great Britain went to the northern region. That is an increase on the published figures, because the Minister of Public Building and Works thought that Wilton was in the South of England. Altogether 25 per cent. of the spending on new construction on industry is going to the North. That might have been expected to produce far more jobs than the Government have announced.
These massive figures for investment are due to the very heavy investment in steel, chemical and oil developments on Tees-side. These developments are most welcome, but the Government are like an innocent child wandering into the strange and fascinating world of big, modern industry, which they have not begun to understand. Look at oil and its impact on coal. A couple of years ago I.C.I. announced a crude distilling plant on Tees-side. Shell then followed with the announcement of a £10 million oil refinery, which in due course it doubled to £20 million, to come on line in April, 1967. At that point I.C.I, and Philips jumped in and announced that they would be building a new refinery on Tees-side to come on the scene one year earlier, at the beginning of 1966. E.N.I., the Italian national oil company, has just announced its interest in building an oil refinery in a develpoment district and I hope that the company will come to Tees-side, too.
The initial output of industrial fuels from these refineries will be 12 million to 15 million tons of coal equivalent a year, and I have yet to hear of a refinery which stuck to its design capacity. The total production of coal from the Durham and Northumberland coalfields is 35 million tons from 100,000 miners. In 1967, 400 oil refinery workers will be producing the fuel which it would take 40,000 coal miners to produce, and this is not at some vague time in the future but within three years of the present. Do the Government expect the


three or four competing oil companies to take life gently in the North-East? What about natural gas in the North Sea? If this is found, there will be a very rapid development. The Secretary of State would realise this if he examined the attitude of the Dutch Government to the development of natural gas there.
We all admire the way in which the union and the National Coal Board between them have managed the rundown of employment in mining in County Durham. Unemployment of miners has been far below the national average for other occupations. But the Government have so far failed in their task of providing alternative employment for younger people who are not needed in coal mining. They have not begun to think about what the problem will be within three years from now. I am satisfied from the verly simple questions which I have asked of Shell, Shell-Mex and B.P., and I.C.I, in the last few days that the Ministry of Power has not made the most elementary inquiries about the impact of these refineries on the economy of the North-East.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): I should be interested to know exactly what are the hon. Member's conclusions. Is he suggesting that no collieries in the North-East should be closed, even though they are uneconomic? Or is he suggesting that all collieries should be closed there and that we should rely on the refineries and natural gas? Or is he asking me to refuse industrial development certificates for these refineries and to keep them out of the North-East in order to keep the collieries open?

Dr. Bray: I am delighted that at last the right hon. Gentleman is beginning to think about the matter.

Viscount Lambton: Answer the question.

Dr. Bray: I will certainly do so. I repeat that I wholeheartedly welcome these developments, and I do not think that there is anyone in the House who has done more in these industries than I have. But we must require the complementary activities by the Government to develop new industry on an entirely different scale from that which we have seen so far.

Sir John Eden: Answer the question.

Dr. Bray: The hon. Member must be patient. The Government are merely making generalisations about the attraction of secondary industries to these areas without looking at what has happened around oil refining and petro-chemical complexes generally in the world and, in particular, on Tees-side in the past. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at this he will see that there is still a basic problem to be faced.

Viscount Lambton: What about the answer?

Dr. Bray: Very well. How do we face it? The biggest increase in demand in any sector of the economy in the next few years will be in construction. The pitiful inadequacy of the Government's target of 400,000 houses has been shown, and it is clear that we shall have to make a very large-scale effort indeed to increase the capacity of the house-building industry.

Viscount Lambton: Is this the answer?

Dr. Bray: Yes. The industrialised housing techniques are deliberately designed for the proportion of off-site labour to be much greater than it is today. Off-site labour can be placed where the Government choose to place it, because the Government are the overwhelming customer for house building in this country. Yet the Government are making no deliberate efforts to locate the new industrial capacity, which must come into being to meet the housing needs of the nation, specifically in development districts. There was only that feeble little White Paper on the use of the shipbuilding yards for housing prefabrication, which has been virtually a dead letter from the beginning. The amount of employment involved in building 100,000 houses extra a year is about 100,000 men and this, distributed between the North-East, Scotland and part of Merseyside, would go a very long way to solving the employment problem, which will get worse once the present construction boom falls off.
On this matter, the Government have persistently refused to make the necessary inquiries or the necessary plans for the vigorous action required. Instead, the Government, while all these discussions


are going on, are denying the Post Office Savings Bank to Tees-side, partly for the reason, known right from the beginning—and I freely acknowledge it—that total unemployment is greater in Glasgow than on Tees-side. But the Government do not seem to have considered at any stage that the clerical employment on Tees-side is only 22 per cent. of the whole while in Glasgow it is 28 per cent. because of the much higher number of commercial offices in that area. Surely this consideration might have swayed the Government to relocate major clerical establishments on Tees-side rather than elsewhere.
The other entirely new kind of development which the Government must face—they have not faced it so far—is the expansion of research and higher education. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said that the new universities should go into areas requiring industrial and economic development. The Government have shilly-shallied on the question ever since the Robbins Report. We were told by the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he was in charge of North-East development, that we should await the outcome of the Report. Did he mean that the University Grants Committee would be the body responsible for deciding what must be done about higher education in the regions?
I remind the Government that, on Tees-side, we have the greatest concentration of new, science-based industries in the country, representing the heaviest investment. We are, however, the largest centre of population in the country which has no form of university institution. All the industries in the area—including the South Durham and Dorman Long steel firms, Smiths Docks Ltd., and two major divisions of I.C.I.—are all keen to put their weight behind the establishment of one of the new Robbins "sisters" on Tees-side. Yet all we have is a deafening silence from the Government on this issue.
The question must be faced in the North-East as a whole. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that Sunderland Technical College must be developed as a college of advanced technology together with a teacher training

college. I would like to see Rutherford College developed too. But we must also have a centre for post-graduate research linked with a wide range of research activities and with a comparable number of graduate students to undergraduates. Technical institutions of an advanced nature and university institutions which will be linked with experimentation in progressive industries are very greatly needed on Tees-side as a whole. Instead, from the Government we get only cheeseparing and vacillation.
That attitude, if they were returned at the General Election, would result in all the brave plans for the North-East becoming a dead letter.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) who made a long speech. I can assure him, having had to listen to it all, that the minutes flew like hours. There is little time left and I must say as much as I can as quickly as I can. It is true that the position in the North-East today is much better than last year. In June and July, 1963, the percentage of unemployment was 4·3 per cent. The latest figure for the North-East is 3 per cent.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it fantastic that a Government whose policies were responsible for putting unemployment up, should claim credit when they bring it down, especially when they have not brought it down as much as they put it up?

Mr. Montgomery: I live in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and now he knows why I never vote for him. Last year, there were all sorts of factors contributing to high unemployment, including the weather and the uncertainty over the Common Market. I can remember when I was a child going to the pantomime in Newcastle when the highlight was always a transformation scene. We have a transformation scene in the North-East today.
In February, 1963, at the height of the bad weather the unemployment was 6·5 per cent. and, therefore, I believe that the improvement that has been shown in the North-East over the last


18 months is abundantly evident. The recovery itself stems from a number of factors and a certain amount of praise must go to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. When he was appointed to bring forward the so-called Hailsham plan, hon. Members opposite referred to it as a gimmick. Indeed, today the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) again referred to it as such. It is some gimmick in view of the results, which are there for all to see—that is, if they want to see them.
The help given to the shipbuilding industry by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport must also be taken into consideration because this has certainly benefited the shipyards of the North-East. If the consortium of Swan Hunter and Vickers Armstrong gets the contract for the Q.4, which I hope it will, this will have a tremendous effect upon the shipbuilding industry in the Tyneside area.
It is not only in shipyards that the news is better. Heavy electric products and manufacturers like Parsons and Reyrolles have had their older book position transformed because of orders from the Central Electricity Generating Board.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: A nationalised industry.

Mr. Montgomery: Whether it is nationalised or private, it is providing work in the North-East.

Mr. Loughlin: Remember that at the General Election.

Mr. Montgomery: Who can deny the influx of new industry into the North-East recently and also the expansion of firms already there? I.C.I. is spending more than £45 million on expansion in the Tees-side area. It is spending more, indeed, than at any other time on development. In the last quarter of 1963 the northern region headed all the regions in the total area of sq. ft. to be provided under I.D.C.s. Geographically, recovery in the North-East has started at both ends of the growth zone.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland criticised the growth zone because certain parts of the North-East were not

included. But I agree with the view that as the zone becomes more prosperous this prosperity will spread to the areas just outside it. I believe that the North-East is beginning to show signs of the prosperity that we all want in that area. We have a number of component manufacturers settling in the area, which is convenient for the supply to Scotland and the Midlands as well as the Swedish motor car firms. Of course, there are still problems, and no one denies them, but they are very different from those facing us a year ago.
One important problem is that of skilled labour. There is a danger that, with the influx of new industry, there may be a shortage of skilled labour in the North-East and there is, therefore, urgent need for action to be taken for more industrial training. In some cases, firms which have moved to the North-East have had to bring in a nucleus of skilled workers from outside the region. Industrial training is a national problem, but it is particularly vital to the North-East. Much more needs to be done to train workers for the skills which they will need.
I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members opposite to a report this week from the Northern Regional Board for Industry. During the last quarter of this year 76 I.D.C.s were issued for 2,989,430 sq. ft. of production space. This should provide jobs for 8,048 people. I do not think there could be any better tribute to the work which this Government have done than is contained in the leader in yesterday's issue of the Newcastle Journal—

Mr. Edward Short: Oh !

Mr. Montgomery: The facts are there—despite the cry of "Ooh!" or "Oh!" from the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), or whatever the noise was that he was making. The point is that this paper is not a biased paper, nor is it a Conservative paper. What is said in this leading article is something which very much needed to be said in this debate.
Two items of news yesterday, one from a Government regional office, the other from a firm at Jarrow, confirm that, far from slackening, the pace of industrial development in the North-East is still accelerating. Morganite Resistors, one of the North-East's


most successful newcomers, are to be congratulated on their plans for yet another factory, their fourth. It is only 16 months since they opened a large extension in their Bede Trading Estate premises.
That is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough).
Of more general significance, however, are the figures given by the Board of Trade of new developments. The January—March total of 56 development certificates, providing some 6,400 jobs, was the highest recorded since I.D.C.s were introduced in the 1940s. But the latest figures show a tremendous advance even on that, 76 certificates having been issued. The total of 14,500 new jobs arising from developments approved in six months, this year, compares with only 7,000 created during the whole of the financial year 1963–4. At the same time, the advance factory programme is proving its worth, for nine of the 16 approved have already been allocated, while negotiations are in progress for another three.
Now I come to the point on which the hon. Member interrupted me.
Certainly, there is still no possibility of relaxing efforts to attract new industries. Nevertheless, the Board of Trade figures are an effective answer to sceptics who suggested"—

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Sir William. I very much doubt whether there is a single hon. Member in the Committee who has not read this report. This is a very short debate. Is it necessary to take up six columns of HANSARD with a quotation—

Dame Irene Ward: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Fernyhough: It is a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is reading a complete editorial which is not new to any hon. Member in the Committee because everyone else has read it.

The Chairman: Order. All that I have heard said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) has been in order.

Mr. Montgomery: Thank you, Sir William. If the hon. Member for Jarrow wishes to complain about the length of time taken by speakers, I advise him to check the length of the speeches by hon. Members opposite and he will find that two of his hon. Friends are the chief culprits.
Nevertheless, the Board of Trade figures are an effective answer to sceptics who suggested that the thousands of jobs said to be 'in the pipeline' were permanently stuck there.

The jobs are now materialising in abundance and are starting to justify the Government's confidence in the adequacy of its measures.
We were told from the benches opposite that all these jobs in the pipeline would never materialise. They are materialising now and that is something about which I think that the people of the North-East should rejoice.

Mr. William Ainsley: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where the figures come from? In 1960 we were promised jobs in the pipeline and we were told that there were projects which would bring work to a specific number of workers. There is not one figure from the Board of Trade to prove it.

Mr. Montgomery: All that I can say to the hon. Member is that the leading article from which I have quoted refers to 14,500 new jobs arising from developments approved in six months of this year, and that is extremely satisfactory.
I believe that now the North-East is on the right road to prosperity. In the past, I criticised the Government. In December, 1962, along with some of my hon. Friends I refused to vote for the Government because we felt they were not doing sufficient for the North-East. Now I believe that the Government are doing a great deal. Having criticised them in the past, I think that now it is up to me to congratulate the Government on the work which they are doing in the North-East. If hon. Members opposite had any sort of courtesy at all they would adopt exactly the same line. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They know perfectly well that a great deal has been done in the North-East in the last 18 months.
I do not know why hon. Members opposite are so mealy-mouthed about this or why they are delighted when unemployment figures are high and things are bad. Let them cheer up. The figures for unemployment are down in the North-East. I have always believed that the North-East had a tremendous future. I have always had great faith in the North-East. I believe that there we have the finest workers to be found anywhere in the United Kingdom. I earnestly congratulate the Government on what they have done and I look forward to the next Parliament when we


shall have another Conservative Government to carry on the good work of improving conditions in the North-East.
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend to examine the question of industrial training because I believe this to be absolutely vital, not only to the North- East but other parts of the country as well. The question of getting skilled labour is tremendously important. One of the reasons for the troubles which we have experienced in the North-East is that during the days of the depression in the 1930s many skilled people went from the North-East to other parts of the country and we have not been able to attract them back. I do not want to see that sort of situation arise again. I wish to be assured that there will be adequate facilities in the North-East and that we shall try to ensure—

Mr. Proudfoot: My hon. Friend is referring to training. Surely he would identify some of the restrictive practices of the trade unions as imposing a restriction on apprentices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That always draws noises from hon. Members opposite, but, nevertheless, it is one of the things which we shall have to change and I appeal to my hon. Friend to include a reference to it in his speech.

Mr. Montgomery: I agree that restrictive practices are carried out by the trade unions, but I also believe that there have been faults on all sides in industry and that it is up to us to endeavour to get rid of those faults. The question of industrial training is vital, and therefore I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about it.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot accept a point of order now.

Mr. Fernyhough: I think it shocking that speeches in a debate like this should be interrupted by Black Rod in this way. I wish to ask you whose convenience it meets to have the debate interrupted at this time? If Black Rod has to come, why cannot arrangements be made for him to come either

at a quarter past two, or when we reach the Adjournment tonight?

Mr. Loughlin: Tell him to go away. Tell him that we do not want him. It is preposterous. This is absolute nonsense and it is about time that it was stopped.

Whereupon The GENTLEMAN-USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act 1964.
2. Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1964.
3. Universities and College Estates Act 1964.
4. Films Act 1964.
5. Hire-Purchase Act 1964.
6. British Nationality (No. 2) Act 1964.
7. Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964.
8. Housing Act 1964.
9. Adoption Act 1964.
10. Resale Prices Act 1964.
11. Protection of Birds Act 1954 (Amendment) Act 1964.
12. Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964.
13. Animals (Restriction of Importation) Act 1964.
14. Shell Company of Australia Act 1964.
15. Norfolk Estuary Act 1964.
16. Saint Paul, Portman Square, Saint Marylebone Act 1964.
17. Worcester Corporation Act 1964.
18. National Provident Institution Act 1964.
19. Saint Dionis Backchurch Church-yard (Amendment) Act 1964.
20. Isle of Wight River and Water Authority Act 1964.
21. London Transport Act 1964.
22. London County Council (Money) Act 1964.
23. London County Council (General Powers) Act 1964.

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I crave your indulgence, for one second? This is not in connection with the issue on which we have just raised a point of order. My point of order is that at the time that we had a visit from the other place I and other hon. Members made a protest. At that time the Serjeant at Arms, who I understand normally stands at the Bar of the House, came and stood between two hon. Members of this House. It seemed to me—I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Speaker—that there was an attempt at intimidation of hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I ask you whether the Serjeant at Arms is in order in standing this side of the Bar in the circumstances which took place?

Mr. Speaker: The duty of the Serjeant at Arms is, under my authority, to go and collect the Mace at that moment. All he is doing is advancing there. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman felt very much intimidated.

Mr. Loughlin: I will not be intimidated.

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,

That a reduced sum, not exceeding £4,947,000, be granted to Her Majesty for the said service.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: First, I apologise for having been absent from the Chamber during the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Consett (Mr. Stones) and Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). I had to go out to a meeting, but I have a full report of what they said.
Secondly, I should like to say how shocked I was at the speech of my own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery), who said that there had

been a transformation in the North-East since last year. Is that correct?

Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Montgomery indicated assent.

Mr. Short: But there was a Conservative Government last year, and they had then been in office for 12 years. If anything has been transformed, it has been transformed by something that they have allowed to grow up over the 12 years. I have rarely heard a more sycophantic speech than the one I heard from the hon. Member, and I am shocked by what he said.
To get it out of the way, I should like to say a word about the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). I very much agree with the main point that he made. It is a tremendous tragedy that our rural areas are becoming depopulated. This is a problem not only for the North-East but for the whole country, and it is a great tragedy. However, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed did not mention the effect of the Beeching proposals on the rural areas. I should have thought that those proposals were doing more than anything else to accelerate the rate of depopulation, and the present Government have some responsibility for the accelerated rate of depopulation.
This is the last debate on the North-East before the General Election. In October the 33 constituencies in the North-East will pass judgment on the Government. So it is as well to bear in mind and put on the record that the Government have been in office for 13 years, or will have been when the General Election comes round, and the issue in the North-East in the General Election will be not what has happened in the few months of 1964 but what has happened since 1951. The issue is not just this year, when unemployment has been brought down to 38,000, but 1963, when the average monthly unemployment was 65,000, or 1962, when it was 49,000, and every other dismal year back to 1951 when the Tory Government have played ducks and drakes with the lives and livelihood of the people of the North-East.
The unemployment situation in the North-East has gone up and down and up and down for 13 years. The North-East has been like a yo-yo on the finger of successive Chancellors of the


Exchequer. The 80,000 figure in the winter of 1962–63 was the dire result of the savage credit squeeze of the two Budgets of the present Leader of the House. The drop this year to 38,000 has been due to two factors—the "let it rip" Budget of the present Chancellor coupled with changes in the Local Employment Act which we advocated—they are all on record—from the date of the First Reading.
We in the North-East have been the plaything, the toy, of Tory economics over the last 13 years, and what will be on trial at the General Election in the North-East will not be just 1964 but 1951–1964, 13 years of Tory rule. They have starved us for three or four years throughout the 13 years and then gorged us for the year before the General Election. But in October the whole of the record will be on trial, and not just this year.
The Government today are rather like the man who always bought his shoes two sizes too small because he liked the feeling when he took them off. They have squeezed the breath out of us, and now they claim credit for trying to revive us just before the General Election. But even in describing the present employment situation the Government are less than frank. I read a speech recently by a gentleman called Mr. Mackintosh, who, I understand, is the civil servant who takes the chair at the North-East Development Group. As he is a civil servant I will not attack him, but if he makes speeches so lacking in objectivity as that one was, he can expect to be dealt with in future as any other politician is dealt with.
The present unemployment figure in the North-East is 37,700, which represents more than twice the national percentage. This includes 28,000 adult workers, and almost all these people who are unemployed are wholly unemployed, not temporarily stopped. This figure has gone down 3,900 since May. I am quoting the June figures. The Ministry of Labour's normal May to June seasonal decrease is 2,400, so the actual decrease—we must assume that it is the very best of which the Government are capable—is 1,500 in the last month over the normal seasonal decrease, not a decrease of 3,900. This has been achieved only because there has been

a net loss by migration of about 1,000. Net migration, which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) confused with the growth in population, is running at the rate of 12,000 a year. This is 2,000 higher than the average rate for 1951–61.
We have heard a great deal in the debate about the pipeline. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East talked a great deal about it. If we had all the jobs which we have heard talked about in the House of Commons as being in the pineline over the last 10 years, we should now be importing labour from Italy and all over the place. At some time, if ever one of my hon. Friends gets any spare time, it might be an interesting exercise to do some research on this to see how many jobs we have had promised in the pipeline since 1951 and how many we have in fact had. The important thing to the man or woman out of work is not the never-never-land of the pipeline. The important thing to the man out of work is the number of vacancies on the books of the employment exchange. He goes there every week to sign on. I believe that this is perhaps the best way of examining the problem.
The number of unfilled vacancies shown by the Ministry of Labour for the Northern Region is the lowest in Great Britain. On 10th June the number was 9,700. In spite of a normal seasonal increase in jobs available of 2,400—this is the Government's own estimate—between May and June the number of unfilled vacancies rose by only 1,200. We are also next to the lowest in the country—I think that Wales was the lowest—in the number of vacancies filled. In the five weeks up to 10th June the number was 11,000.
Therefore, the position is this. For every vacancy in the North-East there are four unemployed people—girls and boys, men and women. There are 10 unemployed men for every single vacancy in the North-East. What sort of tranformation is that? I see that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has gone. In towns like The Hartlepools and in districts like Seaton Delaval, Bishop Auckland, Shildon and Crook there are 13 or 14 men unemployed for every vacancy on the books.
My hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) and Consett spoke about school leavers. What will the ratio be when nearly 20,000 school leavers leave school at the end of this month? What a success story after 13 years of Tory rule, when there are places in the North-East with 13 men unemployed for every vacancy. What a cheek the Conservative Party has to plaster the North-East with their vulgar posters. I counted eight of them in my constituency saying, "Life is better with the Conservatives"—and this is an area where there are 10 unemployed men for every vacancy. On Tyneside, where there are 10,000 unemployed, is life "better with the Conservatives"?
On the ratio of unemployed to vacancies, there is another figure which puts the Government's claim to have transformed the North-East into correct perspective. I have said that there are 9,700 unfilled vacancies and 38,000 out of work and that the number of unfilled vacancies has increased by 1,200 since May. The Ministry of Labour's own estimate of the normal seasonal increase in unfilled vacancies for the same period is 1,000. Therefore, the true increase in the number of unfilled vacancies in this month is 200, not 1,200, because the normal seasonal increase is 1,000.
An examination of the Ministry of Labour's own figures for March to June shows that the number of actual vacancies is 1,400 less than the Government's own estimate of the seasonal increase. Whatever the Government may be achieving in the North-East is being done only because of a net loss by migration of 1,000 each month. The hon. and gallant Member for The Hartle-pools (Commander Kerans) talked about the tragedy of the drain of skill from the North-East. It is indeed a tragedy, because most of this skill is never recovered. These people settle elsewhere. The simple truth is that the increased industrial activity which the Government have stimulated under the pressure of an imminent General Election—we are glad that there is increased industrial activity—is inadequate to meet even the most pressing short-term needs of the North-East, let alone being adequate to change the industrial pattern of the North-East.
The Government have been in office 13 years and in no single year in those 13 years has the number of new jobs provided reached the number of redundancies in existing industry. Even now, with all the ballyhoo of the North-East Development Group—my goodness, there is some ballyhoo about the North-East Development Group—the Government have not a clue about the size or real nature of the North-East's problem. There has been no scientific analysis or measurement of what has happened or what will happen in this region. The Hailsham investigation was a lost opportunity. It could have analysed the changes in the North-East. It could have forecast with a fairly high degree of accuracy what the region needs over, say, the next 20 years. Instead, the Hailsham Report turned out to be a mediocre catalogue of facts which were already known. For example, there was no estimate of the changes in even the major industries. There was no estimate—it is difficult to believe this—of the changes in the coal industry.
The Government are like a doctor who is too inept or is incapable of diagnosing the malady of his patient, in this case the North-East. They seize the first half a dozen medicine bottles they can find and ram them all down the throat of the patient, hoping that one of them will cure him. If ever the need for careful, systematic economic planning was demonstrated, it is in the North-East. We have had Government by expedient for the last 13 years, and their dealings with the North-East have been no exception.
It has been a characteristic of this debate that it has been very wide-ranging. This in itself is indicative of the Government's haphazard approach, because the solution to the North-East, while it is primarily industrial, is not entirely industrial. The problem in the North-East is also one of the social and physical environment of the area. It involves hospitals, schools and colleges, recreational facilities and communications. Indeed, it involves the whole social matrix of the North-East.
We hear a great deal—there was a good deal in the Hailsham Report and the right hon. Gentleman has said a good deal—about the quality of life in the North-East. I do not believe that


the quality of life in the North-East is low, poor, meagre, or anything of that sort. In many respects, I believe that it is infinitely better than in the South-East. If the imbalance of Britain is to be corrected, apparently we must make the quality of life in the North of England considerably better than that in the South-East, to counteract the other advantages which the South-East has.
It is possible—my hon. Friends have done it—to quote many examples of things which ought to be put right at once. If they were in the South-East, they would be put right at once. In saying this, we are not denigrating the North-East. We are proud of it and we believe that it is one of the most attractive regions in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that when we criticise the Government's handling of the area we are, for some strange reason, denigrating the North-East and attempting to prevent industrialists from going there. I wish to make it clear that we are today criticising the Government and not the area.
I have with me a copy of the Northern Echo, one of the leading and more objective newspapers of the North-East. In today's issue appears the headline, "A.1 Scandal"—and the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools dealt with the difficulties of communications in the area. The Newcastle General Hospital's development plans have been savagely cut and the surgery practice there is in a dangerously antiquated condition. I am merely repeating what the consultants at the hospital have said.
A city like Newcastle, with almost 300,000 inhabitants, is incapable of dealing adequately with major thoracic injuries and patients must be taken miles for treatment. The North-East is the only major area without a college of advanced technology. The Government have refused to give university status to Sunderland College or to Rutherford College of Advanced Technology in Newcastle. Tees-side has no institution of university status, although these things should have been provided long ago.
All the North-East local education authorities have woefully inadequate school building programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) gave figures of some of the building programmes and the way they have been slashed by the Government

and I have given a few more examples of the Government's all-round neglect of the North-East. I could go on giving examples all night. Those I have given are just a few taken at random.
The Government have centralised in a block of offices in Newcastle a group of civil servants who call themselves the North-East Development Group, and I make no complaint about that. It is a good idea to have them under one roof so that their activities may be better co-ordinated. However, an important point is emerging—that this is a high-powered body of civil servants which is becoming more and more important on the local government scene in the area.
The difference between the North-East Development Group and other local government bodies is that this one is not answerable or accountable to any other body in the North-East. There is a growing feeling in the area that this group of public servants, excellent men though they are, should be answerable to some body of people which is representative of all major aspects of life in the region. I repeat that bringing them together is a good idea. I am merely pointing out that the group appears to be developing in a rather unwholesome: way. [Interruption.] This anonymous group, possessing great powers, in interfering more and more in local government affairs, yet is answerable to no one there and is unknown even to hon. Members who represent the area. This is a departure from the best principles of local government.
The development of the North-East will succeed only if all the organisations and bodies in the area associate in its development. The activities of this group has led to a feeling that things are being organised in such a way—[Interruption.]—that local authorities and even individuals are becoming more and more divorced from developments taking place in the area and planning for the future. The Labour Government, which will take office next October—[Interruption.]—will set up a regional council to plan the development of the region and supervise the implementation of that plan. In that way the area will have a planned development within the context of a national plan.
The Opposition chose this subject for debate for two reasons: first, to express


the view, which I have done, that Government action, though welcome but belated, has been inadequate to meet the size of the problem, and, secondly, to give hon. Members a chance to reaffirm their faith in the future of the North-East. I believe that the North-East is one of the most stimulating, healthy, happy regions in which to live and work—

Mr. Speir: Why does not the hon. Member live there, then?

Mr. Short: —but it is suffering from the after-effects of the Industrial Revolution. Like so many of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Hexham knows nothing about good manners.

Mr. Speir: Mr. Speir rose—

Mr. Short: I will not give way.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Is that good manners?

Mr. Speir: The hon. Member lives in the Lake District.

Mr. Short: The last time I gave way to the hon. Member for Hexham he abused the privilege by indulging in a very unpleasant, scurrilous personal attack and I will never again give way to him.

Mr. Hirst: The hon. Member is frightened to give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Short: As I was saying, the North-East is a stimulating, healthy and happy region in which to live and work. Unfortunately, it suffers from the aftereffects of the Industrial Revolution, and those effects can be effectively erased only by a Government who believe in economic planning. This Government are quite incapable of facing up to the problems of the North-East. Those problems will never be solved until this Government are turned out lock, stock and barrel and we have a Labour Government in their place.

6.57 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): Like my hon. Friends, I welcome this debate. In opening it, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North

(Mr. Willey) made absolutely plain its purpose—though not quite the same purpose as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) described. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that it was a kind of pre-election campaign. In the 14 years I have been in the House of Commons I cannot recollect a more blatant example of electioneering than the sort of speeches we have been hearing this afternoon.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Willey: On a point of order. Unfortunately, you have not been present throughout the whole debate, Sir Robert, but at the moment the Secretary of State is purporting to be quoting words I used. That is not so and he has deliberately distorted what I said. Is there any way in which I can claim the protection of the Chair?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Heath: Nevertheless, the whole Committee has heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The whole atmosphere of his speech was that of a challenge—[Interruption.]—and I can assure him that we are delighted to meet that challenge. I could not understand why the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends wanted to raise this subject on a Supply Day. Having been often to the North-East and knowing what the people are saying there and what views they hold, I could not understand it, except that now I see that hon. Members opposite are still trying to perpetuate this myth of the declining, decadent North-East. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is true. Hon. Members opposite pretend to say that they welcome the developments going on there, that they welcome industrialists going to the area, and so on, but then they pick on every single example where something is not already perfect and complain about it. That is exactly what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North did. There was not a word about the achievements of the North-East—[Interruption.]—and not a single constructive suggestion has come from the benches opposite. We get that familiar concluding sentence to the effect that results can only be got by a Government believing in and capable of making


a national economic plan. That is what we have had on every occasion, but no elaboration at all of what is meant—and not a single constructive idea.
We welcome it, of course, because in the North-East at the moment we are seeing considerable success. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and if he does not acknowledge it let him look at the speech of the Chairman of the North-East Development Council at its last meeting—

Mr. Shinwell: In my constituency?

Mr. Heath: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Shinwell: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Why will he not give way? Is he afraid of me?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Minister does not give way, the right hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House a very long time, knows the Rules as well as I do.

Mr. Heath: No one can dispute that the North-East has kept its vigour. Let us agree to take the view of the Chairman of the North-East Development Council, when he said that there had been a tremendous improvement in the public morale of the North-East. There was a new confidence throughout the region, and he felt that all could feel justifiably optimistic about the future.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to make an attack on the North-East Development Group, and the civil servants v/ho form it. I want to repudiate straight away what he said. When this programme was put into action, I was urged to set up the most powerful machine possible in the North-East in order to achieve results. What we have is a group of civil servants who are responsible to the Government, and the Government are responsible to this House, and that is how the machine works.
There is no question of these civil servants interfering with the powers of the local authorities. They are working extremely closely with the local authorities, and very successfully, and the local authorities welcome it. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that people throughout the North-East are feeling that they have no say in their own affairs, which

are run by faceless civil servants, is absolute nonsense and should be absolutely repudiated. In any case, I have presided over one of their meetings myself, and I resent what the hon. Gentleman said about them.
Hon. Members have raised a good many points in this debate and I will, in the brief time available, try to reply to as many as I can, though I recognise that hon. Members for London constituencies also want to carry on with the next debate.
When I first went to the North-East I was asked, "This is a long-term programme—what about immediate results? We may see results through the growth of the infra-structure—what about the present?" We now see that through an expanding economy unemployment has been reduced to 3 per cent., and we are determined to bring it lower. That is a matter for general recognition and welcome, not for the constant looking back of the hon. Gentleman. One thing that is characteristic of the North-East is that it is no longer looking back; it is looking forward, and rightly so.
When the hon. Gentleman is talking about the achievements of the North-East and comparing figures, let him and his friends also bear in mind the number of jobs that have been lost because of structural change in the economy, and the decline of the coal industry, and of ship repairing and ship building. If we look at the figures for coal mining alone, we find that manpower in four years has fallen by 23,000. That one simple fact means that 23,000 new jobs, from new industries, from new plants have to be found. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the criterion against which progress must be judged, and it is the one thing that is never mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
When we look at the present position in regard to industrial certificates we see this continuing and very welcome increase. From 1st April, 1963, to 30th June, 1964, 217 industrial development certificates were issued for 7 million sq. ft. of factory space, with jobs for an estimated 15,000 male workers. Of these industrial development certificates, 29 are for units new to the area with 2½ million sq. ft. of factory space.


Surely this is a matter for congratulation for the North-East. The movement of industry in this country is not dictated by the Government or by anyone else. It is brought about by the expansion of industry itself and, in a free economy, that will always be so.
The other interesting figure is the monthly average of male jobs from industrial development certificates issued. It is an increasing average. From April to September, 1963, there were 532 jobs per month; October to December, 1963, 1,111—

Mr. Short: In the pipeline.

Mr. Heath: —and January to June, 1964, 1,467. The hon. Gentleman keeps on shouting "In the pipeline". Does he not want jobs in the pipeline? His is a fantastic attitude when we can all see how much industrial development is going on in the North-East. It is because the North-East recognises this that it is so buoyant today.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North asked me in particular—as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans)—about Fords. When firms are looking for sites we retain this information as confidential. We do not give any information about any particular firm or the area in which it is looking, because we believe that only in this way can firms make what they believe to be the best choice of site. Therefore, I cannot tell hon. Members what plans any particular firm may have.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that he wanted massive investment in the North-East. It is worth recollecting that from April, 1960, to June, 1964, £20·9 million went into the North-East alone from the inducements of the Local Employment Acts. That is 18 per cent. of the total for Great Britain—

Mr. Willey: Public money.

Mr. Heath: Yes, public money. I thought that the hon. Member wanted to use public money for everything—

Mr. Shinwell: What is the unemployment figure?

Mr. Heath: With a population of 7½ per cent. of the total the North-East is

getting 18 per cent. of the public investment going into this form of industrial inducement. I should have thought that that was sufficient demonstration of the importance of the North-East.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about Sunderland. In those four years, Sunderland alone has had £3·27 million, which is 16 per cent. of what the North-East has had as a whole. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends from the North-East—and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) also—realise what proportion Sunderland has had of this investment in the North-East.
The hon. Member asked me about the advance factory in Sunderland. Again, I cannot give him confidential information, but I think that we do expect some thing positive and hopeful in the near future, and we will, of course, make any announcement as soon as it is possible to do so—

Mr. Shinwell: Give us the unemployment figures.

Mr. Heath: Education was the other main point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. The North-East has 7 per cent. of the total school population. In 1963–64 it got 9 per cent. of the total school programme and in 1964–65 is getting 12 per cent. of the total school programme. This, again, bears witness to the amount of the investment in education that the North-East is getting. The hon. Gentleman said that the amount of training provided is still not enough. He must recognise that the priority that the North-East and Scotland are getting must be at the expense of other regions of the country, and it is only right that this balance should be maintained.
The hon. Member also asked about training schemes. As he knows, the two existing centres at Felling and Tursdale are being extended and a new training centre is being created at Billingham. As these places are taken up, so we can review the need where more training is required. My noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) emphasised quite properly the problems of depopulation in Berwickshire. I have already put in hand exactly the sort of study for which he asked. It is being done


by the Interdepartmental Steering Group on Regional Development. The studies cover areas affected on the Borders, in Wales and in Lincolnshire and the Group will also be able to take account of the area mentioned by my noble Friend.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Stones) emphasised certain problems. The North-East Development Group at my request will have a discussion in Newcastle next Thursday with members of the North-West Durham Joint Industrial Committee about these problems, and there will be a general discussion of industrial problems in the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South raised important questions with which I can deal now only briefly. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government will be able to give Sunderland a decision quite shortly on housing. I hope that that will be encouraging to Sunderland. The draft procedures have now been carried through in relation to the new town of Washington and it is thought that this will be able to get on the way very quickly. I have already mentioned education as it affects Sunderland.
We have looked carefully at plans for a new port, but in the plans which my hon. Friend put before us the scale of expansion cost is so great that I do not believe that we would be justified in carrying out the even more detailed examination for which he has asked. I have dealt with the question of retraining facilities, and I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of emphasising overseas the possibilities of the North-East.
This is done for the United States by the British Industrial Development Office in New York, and in various embassies we have been emphasising to European countries the great advantages of the North-East and other development districts. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools raised the question of Middleton St. George airfield.

Mr. Shinwell: What about the unemployment figures in The Hartlepools?

Mr. Heath: I fully recognise what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the unemployment position there. As he emphasised, it has been greatly improved,

but there is still much to be done and when I was last there I was able to tell my hon. and gallant Friend of the expansion of a new firm going into The Hartlepools and that we had decided to build another advance factory there. This is practical, constructive action for The Hartlepools.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government realises the importance of obtaining an early decision about the shopping centre, and this he will endeavour to obtain. My hon. and gallant Friend asked about B.O.T.A.C. This is a general point and I am satisfied that B.O.T.A.C. is not responsible for delays in the very great majority of cases. Applications are often held up by the attempt of a firm to obtain the information required. This is not something for which B.O.T.A.C. is blameworthy, but we are trying to reduce delays as far as we possibly can.

Mr. Ainsley: The right hon. Gentleman has been trying since 1960.

Mr. Heath: As for the airport, we made an offer to Middleton St. George which I believe was a reasonable one. It was that we would make £250,000 available for the development of these communications provided that the two airports of Woolsington and Middleton St. George can be operated together. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation is convinced that this is the most sensible and practical way of operating the two main airports in the North-East. I therefore very much hope that the local authorities which are considering this will soon be able to reach a decision.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) asked me about clearing derelict land. He said that we had no information and no clue to what was going on. I can give him detailed information about this. He will recall that in April last year we decided to increase the grant from 50 per cent. to 85 per cent. for the treatment of derelict land under Section 5 of the Local Employment Act. The position now is that 59 applications covering 1,110 acres have been given final or preliminary approval, and 28 applications covering 144 acres are under consideration. In


addition, local authorities in the North-East have submitted programmes of projected schemes covering at least 1,039 acres and we are pressing ahead with the investigation of those sites.
We think that when the applications are submitted and examined a substantial proportion will be of the kind eligible for grant. In order to give information to the hon. Member I shall circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the numbers and acreages of schemes already approved or put forward in each local authority area in the North-East.
We are immensely encouraged by the way in which local authorities have responded to the higher rate of grant. If applications come forward on the scale which these preliminary figures indicate this will mean that an average of 700 acres of derelict land in the North-East will be improved or reclaimed each year. Never before has a programme on this scale been undertaken in the North-East. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I believe that still greater efforts are needed to break the back of the problem and we shall require further co-operation from the local authorities. I am sure that we shall get it.
The North-East Development Group, containing representatives of my right hon. Friend's Department and the Regional Controller of the Board of Trade will be discussing shortly ways and means whereby we can step up this drive on dereliction. The discussion will be with the planning authorities in the region on which will fall the task of preparing and carrying out suitable schemes of the kind which the Local Employment Act covers. All of us who are tremendously keen on clearing away the remnants of industrial dereliction in the North-East will make every effort to clear this waste land.
In reply to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) the undertaking about employment in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the White Paper will be adhered to completely. I shall not enter into discussion about any precise figure of unemployment. The one given is only a guide for development districts. The hon. Member will find that the

figures for individual development districts are lower than those which he mentioned. We have given a very full undertaking for the North-East and Central Scotland. This should give those areas full confidence in the future and in the inducements to people to go there.
The hon. Member did not answer my question about what he wants me to do about industrial development certificates for oil refineries. This is a fundamental matter. The hon. Member says that he welcomes them, but since Shell announced the first one he has been critical of them in questions to me. We want the refineries to go to the North- East and the petro-chemical industries to go round them. We realise that they are capital-intensive but—

Dr. Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: Yes.

Mr. Shinwell: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman give way to me?

Dr. Bray: I said that what the Secretary of State could do was to carry on to the next stage and follow the implications of this development, which I wholeheartedly welcome, but he shows no sign of doing that. What does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate the continuing employment to be in coalmining in Durham in the next few years?

Mr. Heath: It is not a question of the refineries going there. They serve the North-East and the whole of the North and, indeed, part of the Midlands markets. One cannot tie up an industrial development certificate for a refinery with particular collieries in Durham or the North-East. We want refineries to supply the whole market and the Coal Board to retain economic pits to the greatest extent possible. This is our intention.
As to the general situation in the North-East, I have tried to cover the wide field very quickly. I now want to say a word about the South-East Plan. I do not believe hon. Members opposite are right in saying that the South-East Plan is damaging the North-East. I have constantly said that there are at least five safeguards which the North-East and Central Scotland have got. The first is that the South-East will not be making its demands for capital investment until the 1970s. What is more, Scotland and


the North-East have got their undertakings about their priorities in capital investment—18 per cent. for 13 per cent. of the population.
Secondly, there is no intention of relaxing the industrial development certificate policy. As far as the Midlands and the South-East are concerned, it will remain as tough as ever. I have been at pains to emphasise to industrialists that this is so, and my Department constantly emphasises it.
Thirdly, the public investment programme priority will give these two areas an advantage which the South-East will not have because it has no investment priority.
Fourthly, the two areas will have the continuity of development district status which I have been discussing; and fifthly, almost 60 per cent. of employment required in the South-East will come from services and not from manufacturing industry which we are persuading to go into the North-East and Central Scotland. I hope hon. Members will cease to harp upon the South-East and will concentrate

on the advantages which the North-East has got.

To sum up, I believe that we are now seeing continued and excellent progress in the North-East. What is more, I believe that the people there know it and feel it. Those of us who have visited the North-East, even in the nine months in which I have held this office, can feel the change which has taken place in the whole area and in the attitude of the population. There is now a realisation of the possibilities in the North-East and the way in which they are being seized by industrialists.

Our task now is to do everything possible to encourage that, to refrain from saying things which may deter progress, and then to see the results at which we are all aiming in the North-East as a whole.

Question put, That a reduced sum, not exceeding £4,947,000, be granted to Her Majesty for the said service.

The Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 220.

Division No. 135.]
AYES
[7.23 p.m


Abse, Leo
Foley, Maurice
Lubbock, Eric


Ainsley, William
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
McCann, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Forman, J. C.
MacColl, James


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mclnnes, James


Beaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mason, Roy


Benson, Sir George
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher


Boston, T. G.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mellish, R. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Millan, Bruce


Boyden, James
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Milne, Edward


Bradley, Tom
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mitchison, G. R.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hilton, A. V.
Moody, A. S.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Holman, Percy
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Holt, Arthur
Moyle, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howell, Charies A. (Perry Barr)
Mulley, Frederick


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howie, W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Callaghan, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, A. E.
Oliver, G. H.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
O'Malley, B. K.


Collick, Percy
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Owen, Will


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, W. E.


Crosland, Anthony
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Grossman, R. H. S.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pargiter, G. A.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Frederick


Darling, George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Davles, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, R. E.


Deer, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Diamond, John
King, Dr. Horace
Randall, Harry


Dodds, Norman
Lawson, George
Rankin, John


Doig, Peter
Ledger, Ron
Reid, William


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reynolds, G. W.


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rhodes, H.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Evans, Albert
Lipton, Marcus
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Fernyhough, E.
Loughlin, Charles
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)




Ross, William
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Whitlock, William


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Stonehouse, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Short, Edward
Stones, William
Willey, Frederick


Silkin, John
Taverne, D.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Skeffington, Arthur
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Thornton, Ernest
Woof, Robert


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wainwright, Edwin
Wyatt, Woodrow


Small, William
Warbey, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Snow, Julian
Weitzman, David



Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Steele, Thomas
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. Redhead and Mr. Grey.




NOES


Allason, James
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Marlowe, Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Sir Douglas


Ashton, Sir Herbert
Coodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant-Ferris, R.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Green, Alan
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawby, Ray


Barter, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bell, Ronald
Harris, Frederick (Croydon, N. W.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Berkeley, Humphry
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, William


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bidgood, John C.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Biffen, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Black, Sir Cyril
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Bernard
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Partridge, E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hollingworth, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pitt, Dame Edith


Buck, Antony
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Campbell, Gordon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Iremonger, T, L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chataway, Christopher
James, David
Pym, Francis


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jennings, J. C.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cleaver, Leonard
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Cole, Norman
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cooper, A. E.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roots, William


Cordeaux, Lt. -Col. J. K.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cordle, John
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Scott-Hopkins, James


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharples, Richard


Coulson, Michael
Kimball, Marcus
Shepherd, William


Craddock, sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Crawley, Aidan
Lagden, Godfrey
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)


Critchley, Julian
Lambton, Viscount
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Crowder, F. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speir, Rupert


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Leather, Sir Edwin
Stainton, Keith


Curran, Charles
Leavey, J. A.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stevens, Geoffrey


Dalkeith, Earl of




Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, J. A.


Digby, simon wingfield
Lilley, F. J. p.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Doughty, Charles
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Drayson, G. B.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


du Cann, Edward
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Duncan, Sir James
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Eden, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Emery, Peter
Loveys, Walter H.
Teeling, Sir William


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Temple, John M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Forrest, George
MacLeod, Sir John (Ross & Cromarty)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Freeth, Denzil
Maddan, Martin
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maginnis, John E.
Turner, Colin


Gardner, Edward
Maitland, Sir John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gibson-Watt, David
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tweedsmuir, Lady







van straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)
woollam, John


Walker, Peter
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)
Worsley, Marcus


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)



Wall, Patrick
Wise, A. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ward, Dame Irene
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick
Mr. Peel and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1964–65

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for the following services connected with London Housing, namely:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES,1964–65



£


Class VI, Vote 1, Ministry of Housing and Local Government
10


Class VI, Vote 1, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Supplementary Estimate)
5


Class VI, Vote 3, Housing, England and Wales
10


Class VI, Vote 3, Housing, England and Wales (Supplementary Estimate)
5


Total
£30

HOUSING, LONDON

7.33 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: We make no apologies from this side of the Committee for initiating a debate once again on the problem of housing in London. It is a fact that in the last five years of this Tory Government's existence we have raised it many times before. We have had all-night sittings and we have argued at length on behalf of those in London whom we have the privilege to represent. To be fair to the Tory back benchers who represent London, they have joined in the debates and expressed their concern at the plight of many thousands of their own constituents.
The position today, as we are nearing the end of this Parliament, is that the housing situation in London is as bad now as it has ever been. On the number of homeless people alone I should like to give some figures. In the autumn of 1957, when this problem first reared its ugly head, we had 1,000 homeless people accommodated in London County Council hostels By November 1960, that figure had risen to 2,000 homeless fami-

lies, in November 1961 to 3,000, in March 1962 to 3,400, in July 1963 to 4,300, and in the first week of July this year it had risen to an all-time record of homelessness in London of 6,012. This is a figure unheard of before in London, and it has created enormous problems which only those who live with them can understand properly.
I say at once that it is quite evident that the Rent Act of 1957 has some connection with the rise in homelessness. It was in the autumn of 1957 that we first heard of homeless families in London. I think that the Tories delude themselves, and only themselves, when they say that this is purely a coincidence. I have argued on behalf of my party that the causes of homelessness are obvious to everyone and are primarily due to the Rent Act which the Government brought in. My charge again tonight is that the effects of the 1957 Rent Act are still causing great distress and concern among many thousands of our people.
Any decent family today can as a result of the Rent Act be kicked out of their decontrolled home at four weeks' notice, even if they are good tenants. This is going on all the time. Decontrolled rents are quite beyond the means of most families. May I quote the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last year, which is as relevant today as it was then? He said that a survey had been made of 78 estate agents in London, and it was carried out not by the Labour Party but by the Family Service Units. They found that, with only two possible exceptions, none of those estate agents had accommodation for a family with children at a rent under £6 a week, and £8 to £10 a week was being asked for most of the accommodation available.
Since that survey rents have risen. It is an indisputable fact that if a family today is evicted from a home because of decontrol—creeping decontrol—whatever the reason for it, their chances of getting rented accommodation in London are negligible. I ask the Minister if that is not right to deny it, and perhaps he could give us some information which


we could pass on to those who are looking for accommodation.
There is one other thing that I should like to say about the Rent Act, because as a Member of Parliament in London I have experienced much of this. We are aided and abetted in our arguments here by an impartial body, the Housing Centre General Committee which gave evidence to the Milner Holland Committee whose report has just been published. It said:
There is a concensus of opinion among us that adequate rented accommodation would not be provided in London even if the market were entirely free from control.
It was only in the last debate on this subject that we had a last minute death bed repentance by the Government, who said that they were not going to decontrol any further property in London by Act of Parliament. There was no mention of the creeping decontrol which is still with us under the 1957 Rent Act, or of what can be done to help our people who are evicted.
The Housing Centre General Committee, an impartial and very able body, summed up its conclusions to the Milner Holland Committee by saying that in their view the
Increases in the housing shortage in London are due to: Pressure of employment "—
—we have had a debate on the North-East concerning the crowds of people coming into London because of unemployment in the North—that is planning gone stark raving mad—
Social and economic changes "—
and, last and most important of all, the
Operation of decontrol.
Here we have a clear and independent verdict that the operation of rent decontrol, brought about by the Rent Act, is one of the major causes of the increase in the housing shortage in London.
My final word on rent control is this: we have been told again and again that this is a party political argument and that we are wedded to control for control's sake. I say to the Minister that he might take a lesson from New York of all places, the land of private enterprise where they believe that the little man counts on the ladder of opportunity; but, in fact, in New York rent

control is strictly adhered to. They brought it in not many years ago and recently strengthened their laws to such an extent that the tenant is protected in a way which we on this side of the Committee have not asked for. Looking at the American system, it might well be that when the Labour Party get power at the next election we might consider some of the regulations which they are now operating.

Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester): The hon. Gentleman made reference to New York. In a debate not long ago I informed the House that the number of homeless in New York every night was far greater than the number of homeless in London.

Mr. Mellish: That is because it is a private enterprise country and, rather like our own Government, it does not believe in planning in any way on a State basis. I agree that London's housing position is not due only to the Rent Act. Of course there are other factors; but the Government have been in power now for 13 years. They take credit for every single house that has been built and they must take the blame for every single heartache they have caused.
Another cause of trouble has been the cut in council house building. The London County Council, for example, built 10,000 flats and houses inside and outside the county in 1953. In 1963, because of the disastrous effect of this Government's policies, particularly as regards land prices, the number was cut back to only 4,128. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an answer about that this evening? Does he suggest that it is because of some inefficiency on the part of the London County Council, or does he accept what it says about land prices? Is it true or is it not true?
Here I must mention a rumour which is circulating among local authorities. It is important to have it on record. I heard it only a week ago at the annual conference of the Urban District Councils Association at Hastings. The story is that, under the 1961 Housing Act, there is introduced an element of uncertainty in housing subsidies and Section 2 gives the Minister power to discontinue or reduce new subsidies granted under the Act. Local authorities


justifiably fear that, having undertaken large housing programmes and assumed heavy loan charge burdens, a future Tory Government, if that disaster should ever come, might discontinue or reduce Exchequer subsidies already granted. Will the Minister confirm or deny this? Will he tell us that local authorities need not be concerned about any reduction in subsidies which have already been granted? They are entitled to know.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What is the good of asking for the Government's promise? They promised that they would not introduce the 1957 Rent Act, but they did. They said that they would not decontrol rents, but they have. They will give any promises, though they will not carry them out.

Mr. Mellish: I do not disagree with that—

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Really?

Mr. Mellish: With much of it, yes. However, I want to make my own speech. Will the Minister assure the local authorities concerned, some of them Conservative-controlled, that if they have entered into commitments their position will not be made even more difficult by a future cut in subsidies which they have already received, thus making them fall back on the local rates?
Now, rising land prices. This is a story which I hope the Minister will not even try to defend. Land bought by the London County Council in 1951 cost £8,800 an acre, which worked out at an average site cost per dwelling of £270. The figure today—this comes from information supplied by the London County Council—is £618,000 per acre, making a £1,550 per dwelling site. That is a fact. I am quoting from figures supplied to me by the London County Council itself. These are current prices which the authority is now paying.

Sir K. Joseph: The London County Council went on to explain in that document, which I have seen, that it had exhausted all the simple sites on which to build and it now had to build on small sites often involving demolished buildings with a commercial life ahead

of them, introducing great complications and much extra cost.

Mr. Mellish: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the fact is that land which local authorities are now being asked to purchase has gone up in value in the past three years in a way which no Government can hope to justify. I take some other examples. Willesden Corporation has just paid £200,000 for land which only three years ago cost £121,000. In three years, this enormous profit, 60 to 70 per cent., was made by the original buyer. A 12-acre site has been bought by Enfield Corporation for £240,000, and three years ago the vendors bought it for only £7,500. I have the details of the site here if the Minister wants to question the facts which I am giving. That is the measure of the profit made by speculators in three years, the difference between £240,000 and £7,500.
I noticed some extraordinary articles published this week in The Times, that honourable, decent newspaper. These articles were written by Lord Broughshane, and I want to give this kind gentleman some publicity. He bitterly attacked the proposal for a land commission which the Labour Party has said it would implement if elected to Government in order to deal with rising land prices. What The Times did not mention—I mention it now for his Lordships' benefit—is that Lord Broughshane is active in the National Federation of Property Owners and he is the chairman of Greencoat Properties Limited. In 1962, the present Minister authorised a compulsory purchase order on 20 blocks of flats owned by this company on the ground of exorbitant rents and failure to repair. The noble Lord's articles attacking the Labour Party's policy give me great encouragement and make me believe that we must be right.
Land prices are one aspect of the problem. House prices are another. During the five year 1959–63, five years of Tory Government, the average price of new houses rose twice as fast as weekly wage rates. New house prices in Great Britain as a whole rose by 43 per cent. and in London they rose by 61 per cent. One could go on giving examples from figures published by the Co-operative Permanent Building Society showing that, although building costs have risen and wage rates have risen,


nevertheless, pro rata, house prices have risen about 40 per cent. over and above the other costs. On 5th July, the Sunday Times carried a report of a survey, which, I gather, was supposed to be confidential, by one of Britain's biggest construction companies. It said that that company had forecast an increase of at least 10 per cent. in many 1964 new house prices in a matter of months.
Will the Minister tonight tell us in advance what the Government propose to tell the people of London about their actions to control prices and to control rents? The vast majority of our people on the waiting lists and the vast majority of those who are suffering from the effects of bad housing will certainly want to know.
The rising prices to which I have just referred also affect the price of secondhand houses, of course. A house is the one commodity which becomes dearer the older it gets. In the period 1959–63, the increase in the average price of second-hand houses was 63 per cent. in London. It is interesting to note that there are 1 million fewer private rented dwellings today that there were in 1956. Yet when the Central Office of Information carried out a survey and prepared a report on the housing situation in 1960 it found that 20 per cent. of those who were buying their own homes, who were becoming property-owning democrats, would have preferred rented accommodation.
The average young married couple and the average homeless family have no alternative but to go to the estate agent and pay the exorbitant prices now asked, if, of course, they can possibly find the initial deposit for a mortgage. All of us in London know that there is all the difference in the world, when someone asks for a 100 per cent. mortgage, between the value put on a house by the district valuer and the price asked by the estate agent. The difference between the two makes it impossible for many people to purchase their own homes. The Minister must clearly understand that we on this side want to encourage people to own their own homes; but how can they be expected to do so in present-day conditions for mortgages and interest charges?
Every London Member hears about the housing situation every week. The position has got worse instead of better. I ask the Minister to state his party's policy clearly. The election will not be long delayed. Even the Prime Minister cannot defer it much longer. I promise him that I shall do what small bit I can in the position I occupy politically in London. I shall go to every part of London I possibly can to tell the story of housing as I know it from personal experience and as every Londoner knows it from practical experience. I shall ask for no more than the judgment of those who live in London as a fair test of what this Government have done in housing for those who live in the greatest metropolis in the world. I shall tell people what we as a party have to offer. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that we shall vote against him, we shall vote against his Department and we shall vote against his Government, believing sincerely that they have destroyed the human happiness of many thousands of people in our great city.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Compton Carr: It is always a pleasure to take part in a debate after a speech by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). Although he has not been able in the time available to him to put forward the whole picture, the facts which he has put forward have been unbiased. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, they were unbiased, but not complete. The figures which he gave were true within certain limits. I will not try to make party points about this matter.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Some bias! Look at the Minister's face.

Mr. Carr: I am not observing faces at the moment. I would rather observe what I have before me in order to say what I have to say as quickly as possible so that other hon. Members may speak.
As I say, I do not believe that the hon. Member for Bermondsey gave the complete facts. I do not propose to follow his remarks, because there is something else which I think it is just as important to bear in mind. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government have done this and that they have not done that. It is important to remember that the housing authorities are the local authorities. If


prices are rising to very great heights, as no one can deny, why, among other things, are local authorities, on finding themselves with surplus land, selling it at market prices in the open market? This is something that the L.C.C. has not been able to turn its back on.
Why is a borough like Fulham, for example, part of which I represent—and I do not put this forward in a party spirit—purchasing small houses at market value and converting into two dwellings houses which when purchased were providing three dwellings? How is it possible for a council to do that piecemeal? I quote the Fulham Borough Council because it believes that as many houses as possible within its boundaries should be owned by the council. If it is capable of doing that, surely it is capable of doing more. It is capable of buying whole sites and of rebuilding on those sites.
I come to a point on which I take issue with my hon. Friends just as much as I do with hon. Members opposite, namely, densities. An article which I have here refers to a discussion with a Mr. McCue, who is a director of Taylor Woodrow, a big building organisation, as every one in the Committee is aware. His firm was responsible for the production of an extremely intelligent document called "The Fulham Report". It was prepared very quickly, and it was a very sound document—
It was a study—a pure experiment—in how to develop the seedy bits of London.
I do not go the whole way with this.
Its value to me apart from the actual details of the way it laid out houses and roads and parks and shops was the way it re-examined old and accepted tenets about urban planning. For instance, it said: why do we assume that London should have only 136 people to the acre? Neither the London County Council nor Fulham Borough Council seem to have taken the trouble to consider the question again.
The Fulham Borough Council turned it down largely on the basis that the figure of 250 people to the acre given in the report was grossly excessive.
Nobody on the Councils has said why. Nobody seems to have sat down and realised that perhaps it might be possible to house more people to the acre and still give them breathing space and green grass. How? The Fulham plan is a total denial of the sort of piecemeal planning that London has been subjected to this century. It is planning on a vast scale It means planning for houses and

immense blocks of flats for all ranges of society, and for shops and pubs and parks all mixed up together.
I think that, with the exception of the reference to 136 people to the acre, that is sound sense. In Fulham and Hammersmith, part of each of which I have the honour to represent, the density figure is between 70 and 100.
As many hon. Members will realise, I have just been quoting from an article which appeared in the Daily Herald on 18th June, 1964.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he is talking about net or gross densities?

Mr. A. Lewis: The article never said, did it?

Mr. Carr: It did not.

Mr. Albert Evans: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that that survey by the firm which he mentioned was undertaken at the request of the Minister.

Mr. Carr: Yes.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member is probably also aware that the report was considered by the L.C.C. and by its officers, who are very well informed about this sort of thing. After consideration, the L.C.C. decided that the scheme was not acceptable from the planning point of view and added the rider that if the Minister wished this kind of survey to be undertaken in future he should consult the L.C.C. before arriving at any decision.

Mr. Carr: I think that I am right in saying—and my right hon. Friend the Minister will soon show his disapproval if I am wrong—that the whole inquiry took place at the request of the Ministry with the co-operation of the Fulham Borough Council and of the L.C.C.

Mr. Evans: No.

Mr. Carr: Members of both those bodies were at the Press conference dealing with this matter. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear me out on that.
The only thing which really concerns me—and I may be extremely innocent about these things—is that there are people living in places like Fulham,


Bermondsey, Deptford and Hammersmith whom we want to see housed in decent conditions rather than in the cramped and disgusting conditions in which they now find themselves.
I am in as much agreement with hon. Members opposite as I am with my hon. Friends on certain details of this matter. The main question with which we have to deal if we are to house London people in London is densities. We cannot say, "We have so many people. We must house them somewhere" and immediately introduce a completely false and arbitrarily reached density figure. The one thing which people sometimes forget is that in talking about increasing densities one is not asking for one extra person to be placed in a given area. All we are saying is that people living in crowded conditions in an area should be given the opportunity of living in decent conditions in that area. This is the point which we must overcome. Hon. Members will put forward other suggestions, but the question of densities is the one which we must break through before we will be able to do anything solid about solving the housing problem in London.

7.59 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: Hon. Members who take their parties into the Crypt Chapel point to the benches along the walls of the Chapel and say that those benches were provided for the elderly and the weak during the services that took place there and that this was the origin of the saying "The weakest go to the wall". If one wanted to find six words that sum up the housing situation in London, one could say that "The weakest go to the wall" is the London situation in a nutshell.

Mr. Compton Carr: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I know that she is aware that the meaning of that phrase has been turned right round. "The weakest go to the wall" in that sense meant giving the weak and the old the opportunity of ease. Today, it means exactly the opposite. It is, therefore, not a fair analogy.

Mrs. Butler: The point is clear to all hon. Members and the Minister is nodding his agreement.
It is a fact that families with children, elderly people, those who are poorly paid and people coming in from outside to London in desperate need of accommodation are the people suffering acute hardship. In the decontrolled properties, they are either having to pay enormous rent increases or get out. Landlords are increasingly by-passing the county court procedure. They are going to the High Court with eight-day notices and the flood of homeless families is rapidly increasing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has spoken about the homeless position. He has not mentioned, as he could have done, the way that some of these families are being added to local authority waiting lists or put into accommodation on a temporary basis, in addition to the hostels. My hon. Friend has not mentioned how many of them are being driven into substandard accommodation when they are turned out of the properties which they occupy because that is all that they can find.
It is a shocking situation for many decontrolled tenants, particularly as the old landlords, many of whom were good landlords, are taken over by property companies, who buy up these properties with two intentions: first, to get the maximum amount of rent they can out of them, and secondly, to hold on to them in the hope that they will be able either to undertake profitable redevelopment or to sell to a development company at a ransom figure and recoup a very large sum in that way.
Even those in controlled properties are suffering acute hardship. We are all familiar with the way that landlords are harassing tenants in controlled properties, trying to get them out and offering sums of £100 or even more to elderly people who cannot possibly get a mortgage and suggesting that they buy a house. We all know how worried these elderly people are—and many of them are elderly—by this kind of mixed threat and abuse by the landlords.
I have a case in my constituency of an elderly spinster living on the top floor of a building. She is partially blind and lame. The landlord has taunted her with her lameness and has resorted to putting buckets of garbage on the stairs and on the landings in her


path. One can imagine what it is like to be partially blind and lame and to limp about the house in those conditions.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady knows that I rise only to ask her to send me the address as soon as possible.

Mrs. Butler: I will do so with great pleasure. That is the kind of case with which we are all familiar.
Before one is too hard on the landlord, we must also bear in mind that many of the landlords who behave in this way have been tricked by unscrupulous agents into believing that the properties which they were buying were with vacant possession, or they were told, "There is an old lady on the top floor, but you need not worry about her. She will soon be gone." That sort of thing is being done on an increasing scale by the number of estate agents of a dubious character who are springing up.
Even buying a house is an appalling problem to people who think that this is the solution. They are not eligible, perhaps, to have their names on the housing list of a local authority or they may have waited a long time in desperation. They may be faced with eviction by the landlord, and they try to buy a house but find that the prices of property are soaring. A house built for £800 in my constituency was sold only the other day for £5,250. How can one expect working people to pay that kind of price for a house?
I had a letter only two days ago which, I hope, the House will allow me to read. It speaks for itself of the kind of problem which faces people in my constituency. The letter states:
Perhaps you will remember me coming to see you two years ago when my landlord was trying to evict me. The position has now changed. My landlord died and as I had such a bad time with eight landlords, and fearing what would happen to me if my poor little cottage was purchased by the Rachmans of this country, I appealed to the … Council to take me over. Mr. Kidding, who is a truly wonderful person, told me they could not do that, but he could allow me a mortgage to purchase as a sitting tenant, which I have accepted and am most happy and thrilled. I am 60 years and a couple of months and find it difficult on £3 7s. 6d. disability pension and £1 15s. 6d. National Assistance. I appealed to the N.A. Board and they have granted me an extra 5s., making £2 0s. 6d. I have retained the book and told them I just can't manage. I saw my doctor last night and he told me I must have more nourishment

and gave me a medical certificate to send along to the N.A.B. but the money they have granted me is supposed to include such things. By the time I pay 17s. coal each week as I owe some from last winter and 8s. milk…I owe £34 electric to date as my money won't go any further. The £3 7s. 6d. has to be put away for my mortgage rent. I don't want to possess anything, only to live in peace and safety. That is what 19 members of my family fought for all over the world in War II, six in War I. I do ask you to forgive me writing to you, but I just don't know who to write to. I would like to have a talk with the Tory gents who have never known what it is to eat porridge for dinner and no extras.
That is a letter which I received a couple of days ago.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph rose—

Mrs. Butler: I will certainly let the Minister have the address. That is the case of a person who has been forced into buying a house to keep a roof over her head in this capital city in this year of grace.
I should like to make just one more point, because I know that other hon. Members are anxious to participate in the debate. The Minister has said several times in the House recently that one of the solutions to problems of tenants of this kind is for councils to make compulsory purchase orders. I draw his attention to the fact that in the case which I raised in the House on 28th November, in which the landlord had taken summary action against the tenants, the council made a compulsory purchase order on 3rd December but the Minister did not confirm the compulsory purchase order until 9th June this year, six months later. I do not consider that it was accidental that the confirmation was received just after I put down a Question.
In a similar case, which is even worse, concerning another house for which the council made a compulsory purchase order last September, the Minister still has not confirmed the order. I know that there are special circumstances. The Minister has written asking the council whether it still wishes to proceed, and the council has said that it does. One of the tenants in the house has had a nervous breakdown and another, who has recently had a baby, desperately wrote to the council from hospital saying, "What is going to happen? I cannot face coming back to the damp conditions in that house."
If the Minister says that compulsory purchase orders are part of the answer to problems of this kind, he must speed up the machinery. It is ridiculous to expect tenants to live in fear and trembling during all this time, because councils cannot possibly rehouse them until they know the situation concerning the compulsory purchase orders.
As long as the drift to the South-East continues unchecked, we are faced with the situation that in the next 20 years we need 550,000 new dwellings for all purposes in London. The plan is for only 190,000 dwellings, however, so that on the calculation of the experts we are 350,000 short of what is needed.
If a million people are coming into the South-East, as they are, this is merely balancing the million which we are hoping to send out to new and expanded towns. So all the time councils are building houses, clearing areas and increasing densities more people are coming in. It is like the old lady trying to sweep away the sea; one keeps on sweeping and sweeping and clearing and clearing but the problem is never solved. This problem will not be solved unless the Government take effective action.
A great deal has been said about the densities and the need to increase them. I have just been checking the conurbation of London on a map and find that it is 30 miles across. If it is proposed to have enormous densities over the whole of the 30-mile area, I ask hon. Members to imagine what life will be like in the conurbation on that basis. We must increase densities where they are very low but the situation in London is quite different from that of many compact cities in other parts of the world. The enormous sprawl of London and a very much higher density would together produce a nightmare which none of us would bear to contemplate.
The solution is dispersal, reduction of employment in the London area, prevention of office development and a proper employment policy over the whole country. The Minister stands condemned—not only the right hon. Gentleman personally but a succession of Tory Ministers—for having allowed this situation to develop and to worsen steadily as it is doing every day.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Colin Turner: I understood that in this debate the Labour Party was supposed to be attacking Her Majesty's Government over their housing record in London. So far we have had a speech from the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), in his usual excellent form, and a speech by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), but we have heard not one constructive proposal. The one thing that dominates London at present is the desire for extra houses. Yet on this supposed censure Motion on the Government's policy in London, not one constructive proposal has been put forward from the other side of the Committee.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Turner: I will give way in a moment, but we are trying to allow as many London Members as possible to take part in the debate, and I am trying to put my argument forward as quickly as possible.
The great demand in London at the moment is for homes to house these people. The hon. Member for Bermondsey says that there is a growing number of homeless in London.

Mr. Mellish: Mr. Mellish rose—

Mr. Turner: Who is largely responsible in the Greater London area for the position of the homeless people? It is the London County Council and very many of the boroughs which are controlled by the Labour Party.

Mr. Mellish: Mr. Mellish rose—

Mr. Turner: I will give way to the hon. Member in a second. As long as we have the largest housing authority in Greater London, the London County Council, refusing to put first things first, refusing to have a rent rebate scheme which will enable—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite getting annoyed about these hard and concrete facts. As long as the London County Council refuses to put into operation a rent rebate scheme which will force, by economic means, those who can pay for houses to get out and make way for the homeless, we shall never get anywhere.

Mr. A. Lewis: I could quote to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) all the London boroughs which are Tory-controlled and have rent rebate schemes where fewer council houses are being built for those in most urgent need than in 1945 and in 1950, five years after the war. I can give the hon. Gentleman these particulars as a result of Answers to my Questions to the Minister. For instance, in Wanstead and Woodford 50 houses a year are being built compared with 68 in 1945. Is that helping the situation?

Mr. Turner: I do not think that intervention has helped the situation at all. It has certainly not put forward one constructive thought. The only way to make the housing operation successful in the Greater London area is to ensure that the council housing is used for the purpose for which it was intended—to help those in most need—and that is not being done by the London County Council and many of the metropolitan boroughs, including the metropolitan borough of Woolwich, part of which I represent.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is asking for some immediate solutions. I did not take time to go into a whole range of them because I thought that the Labour Party's arguments about the control of land and removal of rent control were clear. I put it to the hon. Member that there are in London thousands of houses for sale but that they are not being taken up because of the price. Would he, as a good Conservative, say that something ought to be done by the Government to ensure that those houses do not remain empty?

Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman says that there are many private houses up for sale. Does he not know—has he not read recently in the Press—that the London County Council has in my constituency a very large number of flats unoccupied in one of its estates, and this matter has arisen because it has done nothing about them and cannot get anybody to go there? Is the hon. Member suggesting that if the Labour Party controls the price of land it will provide one solitary extra house in Greater London? Of course he is not. We have had no constructive proposals at all from the Opposition about this matter.
When the Minister, in consultation with the War Office, was able to announce that much of our Royal Arsenal land in East Woolwich was to be made available in the long run for housing, was that met with enthusiasm by the London County Council or even the Woolwich Borough Council? Not at all. Yet hon. Members talk about these Socialist-controlled authorities which are so concerned about the homeless. But the London County Council has had in its power and ownership for years a very large acreage of Erith Marshes but has done nothing about housing on that land. It may be difficult building land, but we are facing a difficult housing situation.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The hon. Member is surely not suggesting that the delay over housing in this great: area is the fault either of the London County Council or of the Woolwich Borough Council, both of which are keen to build houses? It is the fault primarily of the War Office, which has not yet released the land.

Mr. Turner: The hon. Member is now saying that it is not the fault of the London County Council or the Woolwich Borough Council. In this case I am blaming the London County Council. It had this land on Erith Marshes and said that it was too difficult. But if one is faced with a desperate situation, one has to develop what land one can, and the London County Council has had this land for years.
Many local authorities in London and the London County Council are not making the best use of the housing that they have. No hon. Member opposite can deny that there is a very large number of local authority houses in the Greater London area among which there is under-occupation at present. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have facts and figures to show this. In the Borough of Woolwich there is a grave under-occupation of many of the council houses. No one can deny it. It is all very well the Opposition making all this cry, which they may, of course, rightly do, about being worried about the homeless in London, but when they control many of the London boroughs where many of the homeless are, and the London County Council, they should first put their own house in order and


ensure that they have efficient managements.
Certainly, from my experience as a Member, they have not efficient management and are not making the best use of the houses they have available, for the reasons I have given. In addition, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) that councils are storing an excessive amount of land. What we want to do is to put all the land possible on to the market and let the local authorities get on with it.
No one will claim and be believed that it is because of shortage of land in the London area that the party opposite and its local authorities are not getting on with building. The problem, as everyone looking at it honestly admits, is to make proper use of the housing we have. One can do as my hon. Friend suggested—increase density and make fuller use of the present housing stock.
Even so, a very large number of people in London will have to be housed outside the present conurbation. As has been shown by the South-East Survey, many people will have to move into new towns. It is no good the Labour Party criticising the Government and not producing one iota of evidence of what it will So. If this is the sort of thing that hon. Members opposite will take with them into the General Election in the London area, they will run into very serious problems. Whatever the politics of a person may be, the one thing he wants is a roof over his head.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I have seldom listened to a more ineffective speech than that made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner). Apparently its justification is his allegation that no constructive proposal has been made from this side, but perhaps he will remember that his Government have been in power for 13 years. He recognises that a great problem exists. The fact is that we are in a worse position than we were some years ago.
There has been a good deal of criticism of the Government's record in many respects in this Parliament, but perhaps the greatest blot on that record

is their attitude to London housing. As a lawyer in the years from 1922 onwards, in the days of the old Rent Restriction Acts, I learnt a great deal of the practical side of this from the cases which came to me on the subject of rent control.
I remind the Committee that these Acts were passed not by a Labour Government but in the main by successive Tory Governments. Their cardinal point was the recognition that, when demand for housing exceeded supply, it was absolutely essential that there should be a form of rent control. That was recognised throughout as a justification for rent control, but then came 1957, with the Rent Act, and a measure of decontrol was introduced. The justification for that by the Government was that demand and supply had now equated and that the Government would be able to deal with the housing situation.
We know how utterly wrong that view was. I do not suppose that a single hon. Member opposite would suggest otherwise. Indeed, the Government were found to be wrong immediately the Act was passed. They themselves recognised that they were wrong because, as a result of unstinting pressure from this side of the Committee, they soon afterwards introduced the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958, in an effort to put right some of the wrongs they had done. This Act provided that a tenant could go to the county court and for leases of three years. Above all, it provided that a landlord could not get possession without going to the county court in the first instance to get a court order.
What is the position today? That Act has gone. Let us recognise bluntly what the position is today. Houses with rateable value of more than £40 are decontrolled. Thousands of houses which were previously controlled have now been decontrolled because of new lettings. Let us not have all this nonsense about density and the rest of it. The fact is that the tenants of these houses are completely at the mercy of the landlords, who can let these rooms or houses at any rental they wish—£100 a week if they can get it. There is no dearth of applications. The landlords can always get an inflated rent. They


can also get rid of tenants for any reason or no reason.
That is the stark, staring, naked position of London housing, and what a dreadful thing it is. Hon. Members hear about it from their constituents. We hear letters read in this House. But we all know the problems. Rents have been raised five or six times and more. To my knowledge, single rooms are being let at £5 a week and there is very great distress in hundreds and hundreds of cases. They do not all come to our notice, but we learn of many.
There are three classes of eviction. First, there are the evictions where tenancies are decontrolled. This is very common where it is the desire of the landlord to get a higher rent, and more and more are taking place. Secondly, there is the fully occupied property with decontrolled tenancies. Such houses are often bought with a view to getting vacant possession. This is obtained and they are then either sold for an inflated sum or let at higher rents. Thirdly—and I bring this particularly to the Minister's attention as I understand it is becoming more serious than ever—there is the case of the multi-occupied house.
Sometimes the tenants of such houses are afraid to go to their local public health department about nuisances that occur. My own borough council says that what happens in many cases is that when a tenant does go to the public health department and notice is served on the landlord under Section 19, out the tenant goes. The evil result of all this is that the prices of houses are so inflated that when a person wants to buy one any mortgage he can obtain will be insufficient. He has to take out a second charge and he can do so only if he pays a high rate of interest and borrows over a short period. The purchaser has to recoup himself and he does so by subletting. Consequently there is overcrowding and no proper amenities. A vicious spiral is created.
I know it is said by the Minister that in bad cases application may be made to the local authority for a compulsory purchase order and that the right hon. Gentleman will give his approval in proper circumstances. But one great safeguard has been taken away. As I mentioned before, in the old days when a landlord desired possession of a

property he brought proceedings in the county court. Between the date of the summons being issued and the hearing of the case and an order for possession being made, the tenant could present the facts to the council and the council could inquire into them. If the council found there was a case to deal with, it could make a compulsory purchase order and submit it to the Minister. That safeguard no longer exists.
In a great many cases after the landlord has given four weeks' notice and the notice has expired, he is entitled to and does send in a certificated bailiff and the tenant is turned out. Then it is too late for the council to intervene. Recently the Stoke Newington Borough Council decided to make a compulsory purchase order in respect of a property, but the bailiff stepped in and possession was given and that was the end of any possibility of the council intervening. Speaking frankly, with a due sense of responsibility and with a practical knowledge of what has happened, I can say that I have not the slightest doubt—whatever the Minister may say—that the 1957 Rent Act was one of the worst Measures placed on the Statute Book. Its provisions have led to a great deal of the present day misery over housing.
If anything, the housing problem today is more acute than ever. I was looking recently at the figures for the Borough of Stoke Newington and for the Borough of Hackney. The London County Council lists, as we know, are very heavy, but leaving aside those lists, the Borough of Hackney housing list in November, 1963, contained 5,482 families. Of those 1,600 are urgent category cases. I am told that the number increases every day. In Stoke Newington, a small borough, 1,610 families are on the borough housing list and at least one-quarter of those cases are urgent. The list is being added to at the rate of 30 a month. The families which are housed first are those which need to be rehoused because of clearing orders, slum clearance and redevelopment. Then the families on the list are dealt with in order of urgency so far as the council can do this. That does not leave much room for the council to rehouse people where eviction orders have been made, and so a desperate position is created.
Both these boroughs have built many blocks of flats. We know the difficulties under which borough councils have carried out building programmes for the last two years because of Government policy. In my own borough property is of the private type of an average age of 80 years. These houses were originally erected for single family occupation, but they lend themselves to multiple occupation as they comprise three or four storeys. Sub-letting has been going on for many years. Clearly there 11 a lack of amenities. In some cases eight families may live in an eight-roomed house. In many cases there is no bathroom available and they share the use of one toilet. If space is taken for the provision of additional toilets, the house becomes overcrowded and one or more of the families has to be dispossessed, thus adding to the housing problem.
What answer has the Minister for the problem created by this dreadful state of affairs? It is all very well asking what the Labour Party would do. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West will find that there is plenty of literature available to inform him of what the Labour party proposes to do. If he does not know, and speaks in complete ignorance of its proposals, he has no right to criticise the Labour Party. My criticism is of a Government who have been in power for 12 or 13 years and who have recognised that a special problem exists in London. The Minister has said again and again that it is a special problem. He nodded agreement when my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) gave instances of terrible distress. He asked for information as though he proposed to do something about it. There is a special problem in London, but it is no answer to agree that this problem exists and say that therefore nothing can be done. If it is a special problem, it requires special attention.
The condition of housing in London is a disgrace to the capital city. It was the duty of the Government years ago to recognise the problem and to take effective action. Instead, they added to the evil, and added to it very considerably, by the iniquitous Rent Act with all its consequences. Our only hope

of a solution to this problem is the return of a Labour Government with a constructive policy as soon as possible.

8.35 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I shall be brief in my remarks because many hon. Members want to speak on this subject. Many of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzmann) are covered by the terms of a Bill which became an Act today, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will deal with them.
This is a question which touches every London hon. Member. It transcends politics and is a matter of human feeling. None of us needs to describe conditions in London because no London hon. Member who does not know them should be a Member of Parliament. I am sorry to say that I have not heard a great deal in the way of constructive ideas of how to cure the problem. Hon. Members opposite may not share my view, but I believe the whole crux of the situation in London can be stated in one word, shortage. There is an acute shortage. The way in which some landlords behave is only possible because there is a shortage and they can afford to exploit certain situations. The only permanent cure is to be found in building more houses.
The second thing we should do is to make sure that the existing resources of housing are properly used. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) made a good point in that connection. We must ensure that no local authority allows under-occupation. It is quite wrong that a block of flats in public ownership should not be used to the full. Of course there are difficulties in moving people about and there are time lags, but all local authorities ought to make it their business where humanly possible to ensure that none of their accommodation is under-occupied.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Start with Buckingham Palace.

Dr. Glyn: An hon. Member opposite has spoken about landlords. It is my sad experience that in the last few years a number of extremely good landlords have been replaced by very "spiv" landlords.


The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North spoke about the use of bailiffs. This is something which is happening in London and something which we have to look into. The whole point is that bailiffs may enter into possession only provided there is no breach of the peace. I always advise constituents not to allow the bailiffs in, in which case a court order is absolutely necessary. This is something which is causing trouble, but people do not realise that forcible entry is a breach of the peace.

Mr. Mellish: How does an old lady stop the bailiff going in?

Dr. Glyn: By shutting the door.
In one respect I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West about the London County Council and various other local authorities. It is the paramount duty of the Government to ensure that if local authorities do not provide sufficient accommodation they shall be forced to do so. I do not think we can hide behind the local authorities. This is such a problem that the Government, unfortunately, have to force them to carry out a policy which they believe to be right.
I wish to make some constructive points about the price of houses. Mention has been made of district valuation. If there is a market value it is the value which the district valuer should attach to the house.
District valuers, I feel, are slightly behindhand in that sometimes they do not go quite to the full market value. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North spoke of a case in which a person had to get a second mortgage. District valuers ought to take the advice of local agents in assessing the value of houses to help people to get an adequate mortgage so that they do not need a second mortgage.
I do not share my right hon. Friend's views in that I believe that we ought not to be spending a great deal of money on saving long rows of terraced houses in twilight areas. This is a waste of money. I believe that we should face the fact that we have to pull down these areas and rebuild them. Improving these houses may make them last for a few years, but I believe that this policy is going against

our own principles in that it is not making the best use of land.
I believe in home ownership, and I also believe that: there is room not only for home ownership but for people to own their own flat in a council block. It helps to produce the finance needed for redevelopment. This is a point to which my right hon. Friend should direct attention.
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, and I will conclude my remarks. I want to make three or four constructive suggestions for London housing, because we have an entirely different situation in the Inner London ring from that which exist; outside it. We cannot move people out of it when their jobs depend on living in the inner ring. For example, if they are working in the House of Commons or on essential services here, they cannot be shifted. In that area there is a shortage of accommodation.
What shall we do? First, we must make absolutely certain that our densities are altered. They must be altered, having two factors only in mind. The first is that there is adequate drainage and adequate main sewers, and the second is that there is sufficient transport or that sufficient transport can be made available to move people in the centre of London.
These are the basic factors on which increased densities must depend. This is very valuable land in the centre of London, and we must make the maximum possible use of it. Further, we must be absolutely certain that new methods or "building are used to the utmost. We cannot afford old-fashioned ideas. I do not think that we ought to allow local authorities to play about and to use land for three or four storey buildings or even five storey buildings within a reasonable radius of London. We should say, "You must use the land fully or you will not get a subsidy. It must be used properly".
Finally, I mention a point which I have been plugging ever since I have been in the House—the use of railway sites. We must use them to the maximum. My right hon. Friend must put pressure on everybody to make sure not only that these sites are released earlier but that adequate use is made of them.
We all know the misery and we all know the appalling conditions. It is our job—hon. Members on both sides of the House—to find solutions to the misery which exists. I do not believe that we can find them unless we provide more accommodation in the centre of London. We cannot do this unless we use every single scrap of available land, build up high and allow people at the same time to have adequate playing space and garages. I am sure that this is the answer to the London problem. I hope and believe that it could be cured in five years, and I hope that hon. Members share my view.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I should like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner), in which he was supported by the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). It concerns the under-occupation of houses and the need of local authorities to make full use of houses by shifting people about. I had a Communist businessman from Hungary staying with me recently. I live in a big old farmhouse with five bedrooms. We started discussing housing in his country, and he used an expression which interested me; he said that I had "very low room-use efficiency". Is this what hon. Members opposite want to do? Do they want to go into people's homes and to make this investigation? I stress the word "homes" and not "houses", because we on this side of the House want to provide people with homes, not just houses from which they can be moved about. A soon as a woman becomes a widow, must we immediately shift her from her neighbours into a flat?
It is all very well to talk about moving people and getting the full use of houses, but we want to provide people with homes in which they can stay, if they wish, all their lives. I am not suggesting that we do not want to encourage people to move if they wish to do so, but I could not follow a policy of forcing people out of the homes in which they have lived all their lives.
I do not deny that there is something to be said on the other side. We all hear stories about Jaguars standing outside council houses, but these people have got

on the world. They still have neighbours, and they do not want to move. To suggest that they should be made to move is a most obnoxious suggestion with which we should have nothing to do.
I have been a Member of Parliament nearly five years. I have held a "surgery" every month during that time. I have always hoped that the trail of miserable people who cannot get homes will lessen. I am sorry to say that it is still the same—in fact, it is worse. The odd thing is that it is the very young and the very old.
The Minister has produced statistics showing that the situation is better. Today there are more houses in Enfield. Enfield has a tremendous record of achievement over the last two years. The Minister must remember, however, that we had a very bad record after the 1959 election when there was a stop policy, when there were high interest rates and when land prices were rising steeply. Because of all that the council was stultified in its housing programme. The average over the five years is not good enough by any means. The statistics show one thing, but the human problem I encounter every month is still there and it worries me considerably, as I know it worries many hon. Members opposite.
I disagree with some of my hon. Friends on the question of density. As most hon. Members know, I am a farmer. The use of land for all purposes—for housing, for producing food, and so on—is critical. We must go upwards. I do not suggest that we should strangle London, but density must increase. The only solution is higher buildings. My hon. Friends still have memories of the old Glasgow tenements of five and six storeys, with nothing but stairs. That is not the sort of density I have in mind. I am thinking of modern flats with lifts and with surrounding open space. High flats with surrounding open space can be beautiful, if properly organised. It would solve much of the commuter problem if people stayed where they worked.
I propose to send the Minister, if I can get all the particulars before the House rises, details of the buying and selling of old houses already scheduled for compulsory purchase. One street in Enfield has changed hands three


times in the last three months, although there is a compulsory purchase order on it. I asked the town clerk what the advantage was. He said that, as far as he could see, there could not possibly be any advantage. I believe that there is a racket somewhere. The other day a man told me that he had been offered £100 to get out of his house. I advised him not to move out because, if he did, the council would not rehouse him. Such things are going on. There is a racket somewhere which I cannot spot. It is the Minister's duty to inquire into this.
1 come to the effect of high land prices on the size and quality of houses. I know an area which cost a private developer a little over £23,000 an acre. He built 16 houses to the acre, costing £1,500 per house for the land alone. I have seen the houses. They are well designed, but they have been built cheaply. One enters into a small cloakroom, through a living room. There is no passage-way to the staircase. There are two bedrooms and a bathroom, and a kitchen at the back, It is the bare minimum, but it costs about £3,800.
Considering the price, I asked about the possibility of having a more conventional house, and the developer said, "Over the years the price of land has gone up so much that we are forced into this position". That is true, and the quality and size of houses is being very much reduced because of the fantastically high prices of land. I have always believed that two living rooms are necessary in a house, in view of the necessity to have television and so on, and the need for privacy in a family.
I said a few years ago that I thought that it was a mistake to pull down old terraced houses merely because they were old and terraced. If the Minister's figures are correct, I do not think that we have any option but to retain these houses and do something with them. I recently looked at some terraced houses in my constituency which had been done up and somewhat modernised by one or two owners in a street. They had made an extraordinarily good job, particularly at the rear of these Victorian terraced houses. I am sure that, as a result of that work, they will last at least another 20 years.
Unfortunately, if this work is done by only one or two people in a

street the rest of the houses in the street continue to decline, eventually become slums, the whole street looks tatty and people who are willing to do some work to their homes do not bother to move there. The only solution to this problem is for councils to take these houses over and organise things so that they are cheaper for people to buy.
The regulations governing the use of materials for repairing houses might be changed because for short-term repairs it may not be necessary to use the first-class materials laid down in the regulations and yet do a good job. I saw some houses the other day which had been repaired with the use of materials which would not come within the regulations. Although good wood had been used, asbestos sheeting had been employed for the roofs and the ceilings had had plaster board placed on them, although that had not been plastered. The whole job had been done efficiently, standard windows had been fitted and the houses had a first-class appearance. Despite this, no council would have given a grant for those repairs done with those materials.
In my own way I am a sort of amateur architect. I am interested in this subject and have given some advice and plans to several people on how they can use various materials, although the council would not and these arrangements satisfactory for the purposes of grant. I hope that the Minister will look into this question, remembering that his target is 400,000 houses in two or three years' time. The other day he said that he had read the report of the Town Planning Association, which is sponsored by many people who are not necessarily supporters of the Labour Party. The figures of that organisation suggests that the Minister's aims are completely inadequate; that we need half a million houses, and it also suggests that his figures for slum clearance are grossly exaggerated.
Several hon. Members wish to speak and I will detain the House no longer. We all know the problem and only the provision of more houses will solve it.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: We have just heard a considerate speech from the hon. Member for Enfield, East


(Mr. Mackie), although my impression is that we have not treated this matter across a broad enough canvas. I fear that it has been treated against the background of the General Election.
We must remember that we are discussing a serious matter, for it concerns the break-up of homes and the troubles and difficulties which arise from bad housing. I wonder if hon. Members have borne in mind the possible difficulties that some old-age pensioners may have to face—a pensioner who happens to be the landlord of a house and has four tenants who are earning £40 a week. That pensioner may be drawing rents of £1 a week from each tenant.
When discussing this problem we must remember that difficulties can arise on both sides. I am sure that an appreciation of this is not a new thing to hon. Members, although I hope that they will remember that Rent Acts have been running since 1915 and are still with us and that probably the one to have drawn the most fire is the 1957 Act. At no time have the Labour Party endeavoured to revise the rent restriction legislation, although I think that on one occasion Aneurin Bevan said that he would do so.
The shortage of accommodation is brought about by a number of causes—people marrying earlier, the greater prosperity of the nation and so on. There is only one real solution, and that is more accommodation as rapidly as possible. We are building houses at a rate of 350,000 per year, and it is interesting to observe that according to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) the party opposite has not accepted a higher target. Therefore, at the end of all this, it would not build a single additional house—

Mr. Michael Stewart: Building the houses and setting the target are different things. I quite agree that we have not stated a higher target than have the Government. I do not consider that there is much use in flaunting these figures, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman in regard to the need for a target of that kind that the statement was made from this side well before it was announced by the Government. That was admitted by

the Minister in a similar debate to this one 12 months ago.

Mr. Skeet: Let us agree to differ on that, and let me not just argue the point where the credit goes—I think, of course, that it is on the Government side, but I am trying to treat this matter seriously. The Opposition have accepted the target of 400,000 houses a year, so not a single additional house would be built. But it is accepted that the only way to bring down house prices is to build more houses.
In an interesting speech, the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) indicated that my right hon. Friend's Department was not able to deal with the numbers of compulsory purchase orders within six or nine months. That may be a Departmental problem—I do not know—but the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has put forward ideas to establish a land commission to buy properties at well below market value. Many people would resist selling their land to such a commission. If we have not the land we cannot build on it, with the result that the hon. Gentleman would resort to the wholesale issue of compulsory purchase orders. The trouble today may be delays of six months, or something like that, but the delays would be even longer then. There would be a shortage of available land, and our difficulties would be rendered even worse.
Hon. Members opposite say that we have high rates of interest and a high cost of land—but we have been able to produce record numbers of houses. I do not say that I am satisfied with the position. I should not like anyone to have to live in the conditions in some parts of my division, and I have been foremost amongst hon. Members, I think, in trying to improve them. I should like to see more houses built every year, but there are limitations all the way along the line.
I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East that there is under-occupation of council houses, and I also agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who mentioned a property in Willesden which was purchased for £200,000 in order to build a block of flats 15 storeys high. What is wrong with increasing


density and having a block of between 25 and 30 storeys? It is done in many countries with a great deal of success. Why can we have height for special industrial buildings, yet be intimidated by size for flats?
Hon. Members opposite are in some difficulty in taunting us about building, because if we look at the Swedish example we find that the Swedes, who have had rent control, or a species of it, for some years, have not been able to deal with their own housing shortages. Hon. Members opposite say that this instrument of the land commission would provide all the solutions in the future, but can they tell me of one country that has solved this difficulty? France, West Germany, Italy. Australia, the United States—none has been able to find a single solution to the price of land. The thing to do is to build as fast as we can and to take full advantage of the fact that people can get land at present and are prepared to build on it. Complicated machinery might upset this.
One matter that has not yet been mentioned greatly concerns me. The Milner Holland Committee is looking at the problem of London housing. I know that we all intend to approach this matter most seriously, and I hope that when the Committee reports, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared quite fearlessly to put before the House at the first opportunity whatever legislation is necessary to implement it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."] It may be too late for hon. Members opposite; it will be early enough for us. If I know the character of my right hon. Friend he will be the very man to implement anything necessary as a result of this inquiry. It is right to investigate and find out the extent of the difficulty and then introduce legislation.
We have taken certain steps so far in this Parliament. We have done something about the reorganisation of London Government, and the Greater London Council has quite substantial overspill powers. My area has been joined with Wembley and this has made a valuable contribution towards the solution of the land question there. Two major Acts passed in 1961 and 1964 give my right hon. Friend all the powers that he needs against unscrupulous landlords, but here is a diffi-

culty. There is a growing number of people—and we do not know the scale—who find that rents are becoming too great a proportion of their income. Many of these people have been in their accommodation for perhaps 30 years and landlords are now saying that they must go or pay higher rents. I have great reservations on this question. If my right hon. Friend finds that this condition is extensive he must be prepared to consider some sort of limited rent control to deal with such exceptional cases and to ensure that those people are safeguarded.

Mr. A. Lewis: Socialist ideas.

Mr. Skeet: I am not putting forward Socialist ideas at all. I am saying that we on this side are quite prepared to face facts and that the right thing to do is to examine the situation and find out the extent of the problem. I agree with the Government that to have complete restoration of rent control would be quite wrong because the whole stock of rented accommodation coming forward would dry up. As has been indicated already, the stock of rent-controlled property has declined by 1 million since 1956. If there were unrestricted rent control, property coming forward would be all sold for owner-occupation, but in these cases I have mentioned I can see injustice being done. If the number of cases is at all great it is right that the Government should act. It will be limited rent control to deal with the exceptional cases and this could be implemented through the county court or some other means.
Let us get our facts straight and let us tell the nation that the landlord cannot charge any rent he wants. He has to charge the market rent, otherwise he cannot find a tenant. If the rent demanded happens to be exorbitant there is machinery put forward by this Government which will enable the local authority, by submission to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to apply compulsory purchase. This will deal with a number of these cases, and I am glad to find that this machinery has been now fortified by the 1964 Act.
Hon. Members, therefore, should not say that there is no protection. I feel that in many instances the difficulty is that tenants do not know their rights. They should be told that they can always


see their Members of Parliament or go to the citizens' advice bureaux and can be given advice on the legal position so that they will be in a position to know precisely what to do when the time comes.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: A large number of constituents come to see me after having taken the tenancy of two or three rooms since November, 1956, and I am forced to explain that the legal position is that they are entitled to four weeks' notice. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what else I can say to them? Have they any stronger legal protection than that?

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Member will appreciate that time is short in this debate, but if he comes to my advice bureau which has been running weekly for the past seven years, I shall be only too glad to give him a long and comprehensive answer to that question.

Mr. A. Lewis: Tell us now.

Mr. Skeet: I should be taking up too much of the time of hon. Members, but briefly if a person has been in the accommodation for a long time and it appears that the landlord is not prepared to grant him a new lease on reasonable terms he can go to the local authority and the authority can obtain a compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Lewis: What is reasonable? Is £8 a week reasonable?

Mr. Skeet: It is for the local authority to decide, and the final arbiter is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing. The hon. Gentleman knows that what I am saying is true.

Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Skeet: No, I have not finished The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that a number of these matters have been taken to my right hon. Friend and that he has confirmed the orders. I agree that in certain cases they have not reached my right hon. Friend, but that is because the fact of lodging them in the first instance has had the effect of bringing the rents down.

Mr. A. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister does not allow

all applications for compulsory purchase? In addition, is the hon. Member aware that some of the most difficult and exorbitant cases of furnished accommodation and overcrowded houses are beyond the scope of the compulsory purchase order procedure?

Mr. Skeet: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that these cases are covered by rent tribunals in the first place and, therefore, there is protection. Some of this legislation was introduced in the time of the Labour Government. The hon. Member should look up the law.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some local authorities have been reluctant to refer some of these cases of exorbitant rent to the Minister with a view to obtaining a compulsory purchase order, because they have been afraid that the Minister would not make an order? The result has been to encourage landlords to extend the imposition of extortionate rents.

Mr. Skeet: That intervention may be useful, but I can only speak from experience in my locality. I have recommended to my local authority that action should be taken and it has, in fact, recommended a number of cases to my right hon. Friend—not that I agree that a sufficient number of cases have been so recommended; but by the mere submission of a case it is possible to drive down rents to a negotiable figure.
This is an important subject for all hon. Members, not only in the London area but throughout the country as a whole. Something will have to be done about it, but let us get the facts right. Let us not call for general action. Let us first see what this report says and then let us be prepared to legislate in the terms of the report. This, I submit, is the sensible line of approach.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Butler: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) wants to wind up for the Opposition in a few minutes' time, and I shall therefore keep my remarks short.
I am amazed that every hon. Member opposite has had some apology for the present situation. Not one has denied that the situation is bad. Those of us who were concerned with opposing the


1957 Act will remember that the proposition that was put before us was that the demand for housing equated the supply. That was said by the Ministry. Hon. Members opposite now have to find some excuse to give to their constituents when they appear before them at the election as to why many of them have not been housed. The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) said that we should pack them into smaller boxes and pack them higher in the air.

Mr. Compton Carr: I said nothing of the sort.

Mr. Butler: Schools and offices are required—

Mr. Compton Carr: They are there already.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman says that they are there. If he believes that people in London are prepared to be put into these match boxes that he visualises, I suggest that he is underestimating the intelligence of his own electorate.
The hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) claims credit for the Government for having built so many houses. The only houses that the Government have built are prisons. It is the local authorities who build the houses. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) has suddenly found out that it is the local authorities who build houses.
The position of the Government is that they can either assist or retard local authorities, and for 13 years this Government have retarded progressive local authorities. But what is the apology that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West has to find? Every local authority in London—and I know something about it—has consistently maintained an analysis of its register in an attempt to fit people's requirements into the accommodation available. If the hon. Member thinks that the Government will get an alibi by shifting homeless families about like pieces on a draughtboard, then, again, they under-estimate the intelligence of the electors. People are entitled to reasonable and decent conditions.
What is the argument of the hon. Member for Clapham? We have, he said, to recognise the fact that houses will

fetch market values. What has sent up the price of houses? The Minister, by instituting the 1957 Rent Act and decontrol, has said to the landlords, who subscribe to the Tory Party funds—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the sky is the limit for rent. If one can get high rents from property the value of that property increases. That is a simple conclusion. The hon. Member for Willesden, East is always very widespread in his observations.

Mr. Skeet: Why not?

Mr. Butler: I do not mind him being widespread in his observations if he wants to talk about the electorate of East Willesden, and if he wants to travel to Canada let him do so. His electors in Willesden, I am sure, are very critical of the housing conditions in that area, so he finds an alibi in a committee which the Minister has set up under Sir Milner Holland. He does not even know what that Committee will say, but he hopes that his right hon. Friend will implement what it does say. That is his attitude, and of all the sheer nonsense—

Mr. Skeet: Mr. Skeet rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Ronald Russell): If the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) does not give way the hon. Member for Willesden, East must not persist.

Mr. Butler: What sheer nonsense we have heard from the four hon. Members opposite who have had the temerity to intervene.

Mr. Compton Carr: The hon. Gentleman was not here.

Mr. Butler: I have been here throughout all the debate.
I have one thing to say germane to this debate. There is one thing which local authorities who are trying to do a job are up against. For many years we have debated in this House what is called the Builders' Council, and we have in the building industry today another example of this great private enterprise of which hon. Members opposite are so proud. There is so much conniving in the building industry today that it is practically impossible to get competitive prices or tendering. Local authorities are being held by the throat by builders who


have a monopoly, who are talking to each other about prices, and price rigging in this country is one of the biggest contributory factors in the high cost of getting decent houses.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: As always on this subject, we have had a spirited debate. My hon. Friends have painted a grim picture of London housing, and we have heard with pleasure the swansongs of the four hon. Members opposite who intervened.
To refer first to homelessness in London, the most graphic if not the largest aspect of the whole London housing problem, my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) gave us some grim figures showing how homelessness has grown and a clear indication of the causal connection between this aspect of the London problem and the operation of the Rent Act. It is interesting to note that none of the hon. Members opposite disputed that connection and that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) is evidently a partial convert to the need for rent control.

Mr. Skeet: In exceptional cases.

Mr. Stewart: It would be interesting to learn what the hon. Gentleman would regard as an exceptional case. The astounding feature of so many rents in London is that, in any normal or reasonable world, one would say that almost all of them are exceptional and outrageous.
The problem of homelessness arises because, with rents and house prices as they are in London, once for any reason, through any misfortune or turn of events, someone is pushed out of his home, he is thrown off the ladder and goodness knows, if he is a person of normal income, where he will find accommodation either to rent or to buy. This should be remembered by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner) when he advocates turning council tenants out on the ground, as he thinks, that they can afford to go into the private market.
I dare say that there are council tenants who would be ready to go if they could get accommodation at something like a reasonable figure and with

security of tenure. What they cannot do and ought not to be asked to do is to thrust themselves out into a situation where they will have to pay prices which will take from between one-third and one-half of their income and, perhaps, where they will never have more than four weeks' security of tenure. If we had some measure of rent control, we might find more people willing to go into the private rather than the municipal market for houses.
But where can people find accommodation to rent? My hon. Friend gave figures from the Housing Centre of the Friends Service Unit. If one takes the advice of a former Minister of Housing and looks in the Evening Standard's "Homefinder", one is lucky to find anything at less than 5 gns. a week, and that not of a size or nature suitable for a family to live in.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: No children.

Mr. Stewart: Or are people to buy? My hon. Friend told us that between 1959 and 1963 houses prices had risen by 43 per cent. Wage rates were up by 20 per cent. How could the Minister say, as he did in the House last Tuesday, that
. people can afford to buy houses or rent houses, despite the rise in prices".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 1007.]
It just is not so, and the first stage in understanding London's housing problem is to grasp that it is not so.
I take up the point raised by one hon. Member opposite who asked what measures we proposed. I take, first, the measure of restoring in some degree rent control, because that is a measure for dealing with the situation, although, admittedly, only an immediate and "ambulance" measure. Other measures must follow later. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite must begin to change their minds on this matter. It is not only we who are saying these things now. Even the Property Council has produced a pamphlet in which it says that the good tenant who has been there some time is entitled to security of tenure. One cannot give security of tenure without fixing some figure of maximum legal rent. It is a matter of common fairness to the good tenant that he should have more than four weeks'


security of tenure or even the leases that some are able to get today.
It is true that the greater evils of decontrol can sometimes be remedied by compulsory purchase. The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) referred to the purchase of properties by the Fulham Council. There are hundreds of families in the borough of Fulham who owe the fact that they still have a roof over their heads to the readiness of the Fulham Council to use or indicate that it might use compulsory purchase orders. It has to do that in face of the continued opposition from the few Conservative members on the council.
The Minister should notice, too, that what we called "Rachmanism" in the debate of over a year ago continues—the bullying out of the controlled tenant. The Rent Act is the direct cause of and motive for that, because once a landlord gets the controlled tenant out the place is worth so much more. Hon. Members opposite have sometimes argued that this could be cured by decontrolling everything. None of them has advocated that tonight, and the Government have closed that door. They admit that they will not by order under the Rent Act extend decontrol. They must accept, therefore, that that measure of control remains. But, while we have this creeping decontrol, combined with that we have the motive for Rachmanism; and it goes on.
I have an instance of it near my constituency. The property changes hands every six months from one shady company to another. Each new purchaser tries to bully the tenant out. His valour has resisted it. He is decontrolled because he is tenant of the whole house. There are many sub-tenants. He was visited recently by an aggressive group of people who said that they would buy the house and occupy the whole of it. He pointed out that some of the sub-tenants were controlled. "Oh", said they, "we know how to deal with controlled tenants". This goes on in the capital in borough after borough. One step, therefore, is the restoration of a measure of rent control. The Government would not go as far as we would on that, but they must

realise that there is a need to go some distance.
A much more fundamental measure is this. We must control the continued growth of employment in London, otherwise there is no possibility of solving the problem. This is far more important than talking about increasing densities. Hon. Members opposite should remember that the densities to which the L.C.C. now works are those which were approved by the present Government in 1958.
I do not say that in no circumstances whatever should there be a higher figure of density. But to talk of 250 people to the acre, as the hon. Member for Barons Court did, in a place as far from the centre of London as is his constituency and mine, is not a sensible way of solving the housing problem. The high block of flats has its place, but there are limitations to the kind of families one can properly put well up in the high blocks. It is not a good pattern of living for families with young children. That is why it is no use talking of increasing densities as a way of solving the problem. Referring to the Taylor Woodrow plan for Fulham as a better way of using the resources which it would consume, if the same resources were used extending the accommodation in the new towns or expanded towns some way from London that would be a much better way of dealing with London's housing problem.
Meanwhile, as an immediate measure, the Government should consider doing this. They should say to people who have planning permissions to provide yet more office accommodation in London, "You cannot use them yet. They will be phased out." Many of these permissions were granted at a time when building licensing was still in progress. The removal of building licensing caused those permissions to leap forward. The Government will have to consider some kind of phasing of office permissions in London.
I turn to the problem of providing more houses. May I take up the point about which I intervened earlier? It has been suggested that the Government put forward a target and we, to use the Minister's phrase in our last debate, lamely accepted it. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that he made that


allegation a year ago. I corrected him then. I said:
… the Minister has stated that never once in the House have I mentioned a target. That is totally untrue, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw it.
The Minister replied:
I do withdraw it…I apologise to him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1963; Vol. 681, c. 1091.]
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not repeat that allegation tonight. Some of us who have worked in Committee with him know how accommodating and placatory he is when he does not have the last word and how rash his statements sometimes are when he does have the last word.
It is not only more houses in general: it is more houses of a kind that can meet the needs of people of moderate or small incomes that are needed. That means particularly more local authority houses. There was a suggesion that local authorities with Labour majorities in London were to blame. Let us, therefore, look, with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), at a group of Tory-controlled authorities—Ilford, Hornchurch, Wanstead and Woodford and Chigwell. In six years when the Labour Government were in power, those authorities were building council houses at an average of 872 per year for each of those six years. For the last twelve years, the average has been only 428 per year, or half the former figure. I leave it to the Prime Minister, when he visits the area, to explain to the inhabitants whether that is the fault of the local authorities or of the Government.
If we are to get more houses at reasonable rents, it is not only a question of building but of being reasonable with the local authorities financially. What will the Minister do about subsidies? My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey mentioned the anxiety of local authorities that the Minister would use his power to cut subsidies already granted. On Tuesday of this week, the Minister was asked whether that was what he would do. His reply was a curious one. He said:
There is absolutely no evidence of any intention in my mind of that at the moment."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 14th July, 1964; Vol. 698, c. 1010.]

It would have been more satisfactory had the Minister said, "I have no such intention." How can there be evidence of what is in the Minister's mind? As a medieval sage said, only the devil knows the heart of man. I hope, however, that the Minister will reassure local authorities about this tonight.
Another thing which the Government can do is not to be too dilatory in administrative decisions. Considerable mention has been made of the land at the Arsenal and at Erith. If the Government Departments concerned will clear up the problem of whether it is to be used for a generating station, the London County Council will be in a better position to know whether it can build houses on the land.
We must by all means encourage the development of industrialised systems of building, not that they will be our only method for a long time. It is, however, important to encourage their growth. What are the Government doing about this? Let us take the case of Waltham Abbey, a local authority on the boundaries of Greater London which bought land shrewdly, as the Minister has advised local authorities to do, although, alas, not cheaply. The local authority planned for three years ahead a project of industrial building, as the Ministry of Public Building and Works advises local authorities to do. It was a modest project by a small authority for 550 dwellings to be built in three years and to start on 1st February next.
What did the Minister tell the local authority? He said, "Do not start as early as 1st February next and do not take three years about it. Take five." "What," then said the local authority, "about the interest charges on the idle land?" "That", said the Ministry, "is your affair, but if you like, you can sell some of the land to private developers". There is nobody to tell the private developers that they need not start as soon as they please.
That brings me to my final point about land. It appears to be the view of the hon. Member for Willesden, East, and it is the present view of the Minister, although it is not the view which he held some months ago before he was called into line, that it is quite impossible to do anything about inflated land prices. Some hon. Members opposite,


although I do not see them here tonight, try to suggest that there is a remedy within their co-ordinates of thinking to deal with this problem. The hon. Member for Willesden, East and the Minister do not take this view. They say that nothing can be done. What does that mean? It means, as we have been shown, that the L.C.C.'s cost of land for dwellings has multiplied five times in ten years. Yet the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development tells us solemnly that our purpose today must be to counter inflation by keeping costs and prices down.
Finally, let us take that example from Enfield of land bought for £7,500 and sold for £240,000—one purchase, one sale and three years' waiting, and £230,000 profit. If a postman had the nine lives of a cat he could scarce in all those life-times hope to earn that sum. Under the standard of values of the present Government, why work, why serve one's country in the Post Office or the police, why help one's fellow citizens by building houses or driving buses? Instead, wait, speculate, buy and sell, and search out every activity which enriches oneself without adding to the wealth of the community. The London housing problem, with the distress which it causes so many, with the misery which it inflicts on some and with the general atmosphere of squalor and avarice which surrounds it, is one example of the standards of values which the present Government have promulgated.

9.31 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I shall not for a moment seek to deny the very severe shortage of houses that there still is for Londoners. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) and all the other hon. Members who have mentioned the word "shortage" have been right to stress this as the cardinal problem.
I shall start by explaining the progress that the Government have made in meeting the problem. I have to go back to 1951, not for political reasons, but because that happens to have been the penultimate census year. In 1951 there was a gap between households and

dwellings for Londoners of 480,000; that is to say, there were 480,000 more households in Greater London than there were dwellings. Since that date the population has fallen by more than 200,000, and during the same period—that is, from 1951 to mid-1963, the date of my last figures—there has been a net increase in the stock of dwellings inside Greater London of just over 330,000.
One would have imagined that the combination of a fall in the population, plus a very substantial rise in the number of new separate dwellings, would very nearly have eliminated even the huge shortage which existed in 1951. But, as hon. Members who follow these problems know—I was interested that no hon. Member opposite mentioned this—what has happened during the last 13 years is that over that time, and particularly at an accelerated pace in the last few years, people have tended to marry younger, and people have tended—these are mercies—to live longer. And the increased prosperity, due in some part to the very increase in jobs, which is part of the problem—I shall be coming to that—has increased the capacity of people to seek and to pay for a separate dwelling if they can find one—I admit—reasonably priced.
So, despite the fact that in the last 13 years there has been this very large fall of population in London; despite the fact that there has been this huge increase in dwellings; we find that the number of separate households demanding dwellings has not fallen but, because of these good causes, has risen. In fact, in the 1961 census we find that there is revealed a growth of households for a smaller population in Greater London. Although the population has fallen by 200,000 people, the number of households has grown in the period by 60,000. The result of these three things—falling population, rising number of households and a great increase in the number of dwellings—is that the shortage of 480,000 dwellings which we inherited in 1951 had by 1963 been slashed only to a shortage of about 200,000, still a very large figure.
I must state at once that the figures of 480,000 in 1951 and 200,000 in 1963 both overstate the shortage. But they are an index of progress in that time.


Both figures overstate the shortage because, in both, the households include single people living in bed-sitting rooms who probably do not want, in most cases, separate dwellings of their own. But the figures for both years are calculated as drawn from the census on the same basis, so they are comparable.
This severe shortage of houses which still exists in London tends to be concentrated only in parts of the Metropolis. I am not mitigating or seeking to deny the effects of the shortage but, as a corollary of the fact that the shortage is concentrated in some parts of London, it is true that most of London is better housed than ever before. I will give some figures.
Judging by the kind of households and shared accommodation, the progress over the last generation is interesting. I am talking here about the County of London figures. In 1931, 63 per cent. of the households in the County of London shared dwellings. In 1951 this figure had fallen to 48 per cent. and in 1961 to 30 per cent. That is still a very large proportion but it represents a very decisive fall over the years.
In terms of room capacity, in 1931 there was one person per room. In 1951 this was ·83 of a person per room—less overcrowding—and in 1961 it had fallen again to ·77.
One can put this another way—the availability of a fixed bath. In 1951, 70 per cent. of households had the use of fixed baths. In 1961, this proportion had risen to 80 per cent. Between 1951 and 1961, a total of 250,000 extra households had the use of a fixed bath for the first time. All these figures show two things—both how far we have progressed and how far we still have to go. Any objective observer would accept both.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) has looked at Victorian terraces in his constituency. I am sure that, as he said, we have no option. We have to use new houses, first for slum clearance and then for building for stock to eliminate the shortage, before we can remake houses which can be made decent. The new Housing Act—now three and a half hours old—will greatly increase the capacity of local authorities to get improvements done—if necessary,

where persuasion fails, with the element of compulsion.
We need better houses and the new Act will help a great deal. Above all—and I agree here with my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet)—we need more houses for London. The dominant problem there is shortage. The dominant problem for many towns in the North is slums. Regrettably, there are slums in London—probably about 40,000, all due for clearance within the next few years. But the dominant problem here is shortage and certainly jobs, as the hon Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) says, are part of the problem.
As I have said before, there are too many offices in Central London. The hon. Member suggests that we should phase out the planning approvals. The Government have adopted the course of trying to persuade those employers outside the London area who want to come to London that economic sense should guide them outside London, where costs are lower and recruiting easier. The Location of Offices Bureau, now a year old, tells me, on the basis of present experience, that it hopes that enough people will be moving out voluntarily by 1966 to offset the current rate of growth. The first months of experience of the Bureau give it that hope.
The solution, of course, is greater dispersal of jobs and more houses for Londoners. I will deal in a moment with the subject of more houses, but while we are tackling this dual solution we must also deal with the results of shortage where they cause misery, overcrowding, pressure on tenants and high rents, often representing bad value for money.
These are not the results of the Rent Act. They are the result of shortage—the shortage that flows from the prosperity, from the younger marriages, from the greater expectation of life, operating in a capital city which is almost entirely built up and which is surrounded, as we all want it to be, by a green belt.
These are the causes of the pressures on tenants of which we know and which we all deplore. But we must deal with these evils in such a way as not, by the very action we take, to increase shortage and defer a solution.
Rent control is the Opposition solution as the hon. Member for Fulham said—I think for the first time this evening—on an ambulance basis as the first stage. I think that the hon. Member will agree—I am putting this as moderately and objectively as I can—that rent control is a two-edged weapon.
There is a strong likelihood, if rent control were re-established, that owners would tend to sell property when it was vacated voluntarily, or when the tenant died, rather than to relet it. There is a strong likelihood that people would be tempted to cling on to bargain accommodation when otherwise they might be able and willing to move outside. There is a strong likelihood, therefore, that if rent control were restored the "haves" would benefit at the expense of the "have-nots". Certainly rent control tends to lead to the decay of property. Certainly rent control is as fertile a ground as shortage itself for abuses, for rackets and for dodges. Rachman throve long before the Rent Act. He built up his empire before the Rent Act, and while rent control was comprehensive over London property.
Add rent control to shortage and it will do more mischief even than shortage alone. There is reason, therefore, to believe that rent control would actually delay the solution and the elimination of shortage, and that, while shortage continues, would make life more, and not less, difficult for those seeking houses.
The Government are anxious to know the full extent of the pressures on Londoners and for this purpose they set up a powerful Committee last year under Sir Milner Holland. I hope that this Committee will report by about the end of this year. I should like to repeat the pledge, which I have already given on behalf of the Government, that the Government will be prepared to take any action which is shown by the Milner Holland Committee's Report to be necessary to end any abuse or exploitation of the housing shortage. Meanwhile, the 1961 Act passed when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was Minister of Housing and Local Government and the 1964 Housing Act provide ample weapons for local authorities against bad landlords of multi-occupied property.
I should like to turn to the question—

Mr. Mellish: Will the Minister give way?

Sir K. Joseph: I am afraid not. I have so little time and I have so much to deal with.
It is true that the number of families—I am now dealing with the homeless—cared for by the London County Council in temporary housing accommodation has risen during 1964 from about 1,000 to 1,200. The number in care at any one time does not, of course, depend only on the number of families newly coming into care. It reflects also the length of time during which families stay in temporary accommodation before they find new homes. The new factor in the situation this year—and by far and away the most important reason for the increase in the numbers—is that the length of stay in temporary accommodation has increased.
It is for the London County Council, as the statutory welfare and housing authority, to decide on the best use of the accommodation available to them, and to decide what should be acquired or made available for providing temporary homes for homeless families who ask for help.
The increase in accommodation available has led to an increase in the number of families in temporary homes, but this provides no evidence at all that the situation is worsening materially and still less that it is getting out of hand. The number of families newly coming into care is rather higher than a year ago but is not showing any great tendency to increase. What the figures mean is that the London County Council—and I repeat that it is for the Council to decide—has thought it right to make it possible for families to spend rather longer than formerly in temporary housing. I am confident, from the recent contacts which my Department has had with the Council, that it would not disagree with this analysis of the present situation.
Now I understand that with the development of its plans to increase the accommodation for temporary homes and the consequent increase in the average length of stay, the Council's officers would expect the numbers of families


accommodated to increase further even though there were no increase in the number of families seeking their help each week.
I come to the key issue, which is the issue of new houses. I agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that, above all, rented dwellings for wage earners of average and below average earnings are needed. At the moment in Greater London 21 per cent. of the stock of housing is for rented dwellings, which is slightly below that for the rest of the country. Much of the new land we shall obtain will be for local authorities, with some for housing societies.
I have been asked about subsidies. The answer is that at the moment a subsidy review is going on. This has been fully announced. The fact-finding stage in that review is nearly complete. Local authority associations and my Department will be able later this year to consider the implications of these facts. The Government are not nearly ready yet for policy conclusions. Many months' work are yet needed, on the facts we have only just completed collecting, before any policy can be arrived at.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that the pace of building houses for Londoners is increasing. There were at the end of 1963 55,000 houses under construction for Londoners, plus another 10,000 private enterprise houses being built outside for Londoners.

Mr. A. Lewis: For rent?

Sir K. Joseph: Over half for rent Comparable figures for May this year show an increase to 61,000 plus 10,000, so there is a growth from 65,000 to 71,000 in the five-month period. I hope that this rate will go on rising, but the problem is that of land. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) pointed out, density is also a factor but no panacea.
outside London the Government propose to provide more land by the land release and planned expansions explained in the South-East Study, which contains proposals for the development of 30 new towns and expanded towns, and the other proposals for further land release. There is also the smaller but significant proposals for housing in the Lea Valley by housing authorities.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) suggested that the L.C.C. housing programme had been cut. Far to the contrary, I wish that the L.C.C. would increase it. In the year 1953 the L.C.C. had the out-county estates which it could develop. The problem now is one of shortage of land.
Announcements have already been made about land being made available for development at Kidbrooke, Croydon and Hendon. But I have good news tonight about a further site.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Turner), who made such an excellent speech, and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) will be interested in what I am about to say. The Government have considered the report of the official committee set up under the second Permanent Under-Secretary for the Army to consider the future of the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, following the closure of the Royal Ordnance factory.
Over 500 acres have already been offered to the L.C.C. and it has now been decided to offer them nearly another 500 acres. This includes the site at Tripcock Point on which, it had been suggested, land should be reserved for a future power station but which the Government have decided should be offered instead to the L.C.C.
The Minister of Defence for the Army will be getting in touch with the L.C.C. about the offer. The Government propose to retain only small parts of the Arsenal for existing activities. Into these areas will be introduced other Government activities. These will provide employment for the Woolwich area and make it possible to relieve other sites, among them the Red Barracks at Woolwich, and make these available for housing and also help to accommodate the establishments now at Kidbrooke.
This Government decision means that the L.C.C. can have at its disposal an area of about 1,000 acres on the Arsenal establishment. This, with the 500 acres at Erith Marshes on which the L.CC. is already planning housing development, presents an unparalleled opportunity for housing Londoners within Greater London itself. The proposed creation of this vast new community, for at least 50,000 people, virtually in the heart of


London will have subsidiary implications of some magnitude, notably in communications. The planning of such improvements to the transport system as may be needed for this development is, of course, primarily a matter for the L.C.C. and their successors. But they will no doubt keep in close touch on this, as on all other major London transport matters, with my right hon. Friend's Department.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that this decision will be extremely welcome but that it was first asked for three years ago in the House by me and that the Government have sat on it for three years? Will he say what decision has been taken about the 23 acres of the Royal Dockyards which are totally underused at present on the river frontage? Has that also been released after constant pressure from this side of the House?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that the hon. Member is very ungrateful.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: In view of this very generous allocation of land to the L.C.C, will my right hon. Friend agree that the great majority of the land at Hendon aerodrome should now be released to meet the needs of Hendonians and the Hendon Borough Council?

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order Hon. Members have been here all evening waiting to get into the debate. The Minister will not give way to hon. Members who have been waiting in the Chamber but he has given way to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing).

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend's point will be carefully considered.
I want to turn to some other parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Fulham and to some things which he did not mention. The Labour Party have always rested their housing proposals firmly on a double basis—that there must be a land commission to provide cheaper land and that there must be lower interest rates. It is interesting that this evening the hon. Member for Fulham did not refer to what has been regarded up to now as the panacea of lower interest rates. I wonder what has happened.

Mr. M. Stewart: Mr. M. Stewart rose—

Sir K. Joseph: I will give way in a moment. I have in front of me an advertisement from the Northern Echo, Darlington, on 17th February, 1964, by the Labour Party, stating firmly,
We shall reduce interest rates".
I have here the Stock Exchange Gazette of 16th May, 1964, in which the hon. Member for Fulham, writing an article says:
…it will be necessary to fix a specially favourable rate both for council borrowing for council house building, and for mortgage loans".
I have also in my hand a letter, or a copy of a letter, signed by the right hon.
Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), dated 7th April, 1964, saying precisely the opposite. It says:
… we are not, as your questions assume, proposing to introduce through the public sector some special or discriminatory form of subsidised loans for house purchase.
I ask the hon. Member for Fulham to tell the House whether the public should believe the advertisement, and the impression given by the advertisement, of a significant and substantial reduction in interest rates for housing and his own article in the Stock Exchange Gazette, or whether they should believe the letter written three months ago by the Leader of the Opposition to the Chairman of the Council of the Building Societies' Association. I will gladly give way to him if he will explain.

Mr. M. Stewart: The situation is this: it is our policy that there should be lower interest rates for municipal housing. That is the first point. In so far as that can be achieved by generally low interest rates, well and good. If one could not get them sufficiently low by that alone, one would have to have a specially favourable rate for local authority building. That is what I said. That is what the advertisement said. That is confirmed by what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am coming now to house purchase. With regard to loans for house purchase, the point made both by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and by myself in the article to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is that when one gives help to local authorities so that they can give some help to intending owner-occupiers, one should


not do so in a way which discriminates against the building societies. That was the point. One would therefore have to provide, either by arrangements in taxation or by other means, something which would make sure that the help given for house purchase through local authorities was balanced by similar help given through the building societies. [Interruption.] I am answering a question the Minister required me to answer.
The interesting point is this. There was no need for the Minister to ask the question at all, for this reason. If hon. Members had read all of both the documents from which the Minister quoted, they would know that that is so. I made it plain that what was needed was not only special help for local authorities for house purchase, but that that must be balanced by help through the building societies. The Minister quoted the first part of what I said but not the second. The Minister then quoted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as

explaining that we should not discriminate against the building societies. That does not preclude the giving of help as I proposed through both channels. [Interruption.] So far, I have taken half the time the Minister took on this point. The Minister is doing exactly what I prophesied he would do. A year ago, when we debated London housing, the Minister made a totally false statement about something which I had said that he had to withdraw and apologise for, and he ought to do the same now.

Sir K. Joseph: The fact is—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir K. Joseph: The fact is that the Labour Party advertising—[Interruption.]

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, That item Class VI. Vote 1, (Ministry of Housing and Local Government), be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 191.

Division No. 136.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
Mulley, Frederick


Ainsley, William
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Albu, Austen
Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
O'Malley, B. K.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Padley, W. E.


Bence, Cyril
Holman, Percy
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Holt, Arthur
Pargiter, G. A.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Howie, W.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Frederick


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Pentland, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Prentice, R. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Redhead, E. C.


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reid, William


Collick, Percy
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, Dr. Horace
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Ledger, Ron
Ross, William


Deer, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, Edward


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silkin, John


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Diamond, John
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dodds, Norman
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Lubbock, Eric
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas


Evans, Albert
Mclnnes, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stonehouse, John


Fitch, Alan
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stones, William


Fletcher, Eric
MacPherson, Malcolm
Taverne, D.


Foley, Maurice
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Forman, J. C.
Mayhew, Christopher
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Grey, Charles
Mendelson, J. J,
Wainwright, Edwin


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Milne, Edward
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.




Willey, Frederick
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Wyatt, Woodrow
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Mr. McCann.




NOES


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Alfason, James
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Partridge, E.


Barter, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peel, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bidgood, John C.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Biffen, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pounder, Rafton


Bingham, R. M.
Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey.
Prior, J. M. L.


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Hocking, Philip N.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Black, Sir Cyril
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hollingworth, John
Pym, Francis


Box, Donald
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Braine, Bernard
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Brewis, John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roots, William


Buck, Antony
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Sharples, Richard


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Chataway, Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cleaver, Leonard
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Speir, Rupert


Cole, Norman
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stainton, Keith


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kershaw, Anthony
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Cordeaux, Lt. -Col. J. K.
Kimball, Marcus
Stevens, Geoffrey


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, J. A.


Coulson, Michael
Lagden, Godfrey
Storey, Sir Samuel


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lambton, Viscount
Studholme, Sir Henry


Crawley, Aidan
Leather, Sir Edwin
Summers, Sir Spencer


Critchley, Julian
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tapsell, Peter


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lews, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Curran, Charles
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Currie, G. B. H.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Teeling, Sir William


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Temple, John M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveys, Walter H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Doughty, Charles
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


du Cann, Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Duncan, Sir James
MacArthur, Ian
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McLaren, Martin
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley R.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maddan, Martin
Turner, Colin


Errington, Sir Eric
Maginnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Farr, John
Maitland, Sir John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fisher, Nigel
Markham, Major Sir Frank
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Walder, David


Forrest, George
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Walker, Peter


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Freeth, Denzil
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wise, A. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Miscampbell, Norman
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Worsley, Marcus


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Morgan, William
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Goodhew, Victor
Mott-Radcylffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. H. Rees.


Green, Alan
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)

Original Question again proposed.

Sir Stephen McAdden: Sir Stephen McAdden (Southend, East) rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ALLOWANCES)

10.8 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Justices' Allowances Regulations 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 853), dated 11th June, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th June, be annulled.
First, I would say that those hon. Members who feel that they have a more profitable way of spending the next hour or so at the television set might be well advised to do that rather than listen to what will be our rather technical discussion. Secondly, I want to apologise to the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for what I confess to be the discourtesy of bringing her here at extremely short notice. However, I am sure that she will realise that the complexity of the negative procedure with Statutory Instruments sometimes means that one has not much time at the end of a Session to raise matters before a Statutory Instrument is enacted. There are some points on the Regulations which I want to put to the hon. Lady and ask her opinions about them.
The history of this matter is that as long ago as 1949 it was decided that justices of the peace might receive lodging allowance and travelling allowance, but they were not allowed to receive any normal subsistence allowance. This has been a matter of grave concern to justices for a great many years. One of the reasons why it has been of increasing concern to them is that the pressure of business on them has very much increased, partly through the regrettable increase in crime, which has led to longer court sittings, and partly because of work put on justices by this House, because of Measures such as the Licensing Act and the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, in dealing with the licensing of betting shops and of restaurants.
This has led to very long lists. In many cases it might be quite reasonable to assume that the magistrates' court would not meet very often and that when it did meet it would not necessarily meet for very long, but those

days are past and it is now common, certainly in London, for licensing committees to sit not only for the whole of the day but for two days.
In my own petty sessional division of Park, which covers Paddington, Kensington, Fulham, Chelsea and Hammersmith, to take betting licences alone, we met on Tuesday of this week and sat right through into the afternoon, and we resume next Wednesday when we are quite likely to sit throughout that day. The question of subsistence allowance, therefore, has become a very real one for justices. At a time when more work is being put on them and at a time, particularly in London, of the integration of stipendiary courts and justices' courts, it is particularly important that they should be treated fairly.
It is a matter of considerable controversy whether or not justices should receive compensation for loss of earnings, but as a whole the body of magistrates, for better or worse, have not wanted that. They have wanted to remain an unpaid judicial body. If they are unpaid it is all the more important that they should be treated fairly and should not be put to severe inconvenience. There is an overwhelming case for saying that as a result of what has been happening justices have a considerable hardship to bear. This is a position which I want to mention to the House to explain the importance of these regulations.
Let us take a case coming before a licensing committee where the bookmakers will gain a substantial monopoly value as a result of the decision of the court. They employ legal advisers who receive anything from 50 to 100 guineas for appearing in court, but the only people who get absolutely nothing out of it, not even their lunch, are the people who are sitting in judgment on the matter and have to make a decision.
It is not a matter of serving the community. I sit, for example, on a juvenile court tomorrow, and I feel that this work is worth doing at some financial loss because I hope that I may be helping mothers and children with their family problems. I feel that I am doing as important a social service as any other, but when I sit in judgment between two warring bookmakers as to who should


get a good site in the Park division and I am addressed on these matters by extremely well-paid and expensive gentlemen, I feel that I am not performing a social service at all. I am doing a duty placed upon me by Parliament.
But I feel—and I am sure many other justices feel—that if we are called upon to do this kind of thing, we ought to be able to afford a decent meal between the sittings of committees. There are justices who are not particularly well paid, and some are in retirement. A friend of mine sits as a justice and he has deliberately forfeited opportunities of getting a better paid job with the board by which he is employed; otherwise he would have to give up his work as a justice. He is a skilled craftsman, but he prefers to take a routine unskilled job while he is approaching retirement because he wants to make his contribution as a justice of the peace. He is deliberately giving up a good deal of financial emolument. A man in that position finds it extremely difficult to pay for a decent meal in the middle of the day.
These Regulations go a long way towards meeting the difficulty. As I understand it, they consolidate the old travelling and lodging allowances with the new subsistence allowances. I understand that a new code is being established. I should like to ask about the new allowances which are proposed for travelling and subsistence. Is the travelling allowance being increased, or is it to remain the same as under the old Regulations? How do they compare with the local authority allowances? Are they the same?
Then I want to know about the precise extent of these provisions. They provide for subsistence only when people are serving more than four hours at a session. I believe that is quite reasonable, and I would not quarrel with that provision. But this makes it particularly important to get adequate subsistence for one's meal, and the minimum rate is 10s. The difficulty is this. If one is sitting until one o'clock at a four-hour session, one does not say "Now I can go home and get my meal," because there is no time. One has to be back at 2 o'clock. The lunch break lasts only

for an hour and, therefore, it is impossible to get home for a meal.
It can be asked, "What do you normally do if you are not sitting?" The answer is either that one has time to cook one's meal or that one has more time later to have a meal. But it is not possible to go home, cook a meal and then get back to court by 2 o'clock. Therefore, it is necessary to employ somebody to do it. That person may be one's wife, if one is fortunate enough to have one; I am not. Therefore, I should have to employ a housekeeper, or else do it myself. However quick and good at cooking I am, I cannot go home, provide a lunch for myself and get back to court by 2 o'clock, and this, of course, would be the usual situation if a court were sitting in the afternoon.
It is in the public interest for justices to be back on time. It is not in the public interest that they should come back at about a quarter to three in a somewhat mellow state, having taken a long time and had a leisurely meal prepared at home. The parties, witnesses and everyone else expect them to be back on time, and they have only a bare hour for getting a meal.
What has struck terror into the hearts of justices who have read the Regulations is what is to be found in Schedule 3 which gives particulars about the form of application for subsistence allowance. There is a note:
A justice is not entitled to subsistence allowance if the duties are performed not more than three miles from his usual place of residence.
This is wholly irrelevant to the question whether or not one can prepare one's own lunch. I live about three miles away from this House but I cannot get back home in less than half an hour by public transport, and I have no car. Therefore, the three-mile limit will mean that people who have no hope of providing a meal for themselves will still, for some reason, be penalised and not be able to lunch in the middle of the day. This has caused great concern to many justices because they were led to believe that they would receive fair treatment and they find that they are not.
Finally, what is the definition of the duties of a justice? These allowances are available if necessarily incurred in


the performance of one's duties. Does this include training? The Lord Chancellor has been making a great to-do lately about the importance of training for justices. Presumably, therefore, training will be part of a justice's duties. Justices want an assurance that, when they go away for a residential course or attend lectures some distance away, they will be able to claim expenses for that as part of their duties.
I apologise to the hon. Lady for having brought her here at short notice. I have not the least intention of pressing the Prayer to a vote, because we greatly welcome the Regulations and are delighted to have them before the House, but I profoundly regret the gap in them to which I have referred, which will be a great disappointment to many of my fellow justices.

10.23 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I go a little further than my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I entirely agree with what he has put to the House, but, as an old practising lawyer, I consider that our magistrates deserve the very greatest consideration. They have performed and still perform an excellent service to the community. I gather that if magistrates were dispensed with or people could not be persuaded to undertake these onerous duties about £20 million a year for the cost of stipendiaries would be incurred by the nation, taking the rate at which a stipendiary magistrate is now paid. This is a large consideration and one which should affect our minds in discussing these Regulations for travelling and subsistence allowances.
In my view—and I think it is the view of the majority of people—magistrates perform a voluntary service of the highest order and we should not take advantage of the fact that they are prepared to give their time in doing it. This is particularly so today, because in addition to their ordinary duties, which are increasing daily, they are expected to attend courses to make themselves proficient. We understand what this means to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes, who is a very well known magistrate and who has given remarkably good service to the bench and to the community, and we understand what

it means to his colleagues. It is in that light that we have to approach Regulations of this description.
I do not suppose that we shall press this matter to a division. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes has intimated that he does not want to do that. But I am not altogether sure whether a parsimonious provision is good enough. I am not sure whether it should be accepted, particularly when it does not deal with every difficulty concerning subsistence which faces a magistrate. A juror is allowed a certain amount for the days that he is in court. His subsistence does not depend on where he lives. It is true that he gets a very meagre allowance, but no distinction is made between one juror and another because one may live further from the court than the other.
In a place like London, how can one check the position by reference to distance? It is literally impossible. A mile in London may, in time, be the equivalent of two or three miles in the provinces. I am not altogether happy about the four hours. After all, four hours may mean two sessions. A court may sit in the morning for a few hours and in the afternoon for a few hours. The total time involved may be only four hours, and a person who lives less than three miles from the court is expected to go home, prepare a meal, have it and return to the court and carry on with his duties. That is preposterous. In most cases it is literally impossible for a person to do this. What my hon. Friend said about attending a court in London, going home and returning to the court twice in the same day is correct.
It is extremely important that the subsistence allowance should be adequate and should not be restricted. I suppose that I shall be told by the Under-Secretary of State that the Act says that there must be certain limits regarding distance. I should not accept Regulations made under the Act if I were a magistrate unless and until there was some improvement of the Act. I would reject the order out of hand rather than be told, "Because you live 2¾ miles from the court, you are expected to go home, and you cannot get anything."
Why should a magistrate be subjected to that? What earthly right have we,


any of us, to say that a person is not even entitled to be paid for a meal if he happens to live less than three miles from the court? It is an absurd position, and I hope that whatever happens to these Regulations tonight, the hon. Lady will put her mind to it to see whether some remedy can be made, whether by means of another Act or by whatever means are necessary. Surely, £20 million saved to the nation should justify giving 10s. to a magistrate to have a meal.
Who are affected by this? My hon. Friend has said, quite rightly, that there is a large number of magistrates to whom 10s. is a considerable sum, or to whom the difference between being paid for a meal and not being paid for a meal is a very considerable one. They make their sacrifices, particularly the poorer, and particularly the poorer ones in those districts where poor persons live. I am not begging for charity. It is not a question of charity. It is a question of common sense and understanding. These people make sacrifices. My hon. Friend gave a very interesting illustration just now. A person should not be told that he has to go home for a meal. He may be a bachelor, and that would mean that to prepare it would take a little longer.

Mr. MacColl: Oh, no.

Sir B. Janner: Well, I do not know; but I should have thought a man would take a little longer to provide himself with a proper, satisfying meal. Perhaps not if he were a practised cook, but I should have thought it would have taken longer than if he had a wife to look after him.

Mr. MacColl: My hon. Friend will appreciate that if I had a wife I should send her out to work, so that she would not be there at all!

Sir B. Janner: That makes the argument even stronger.
But so, too, for a woman who has to look after a family. During the day in court, she goes home to prepare a meal for her family and she has to look after herself, too, and has to rush from and to the court—and cannot be late. Those of us who know what happens in court know what happens when a magistrate turns up late and some counsel is in a hurry to get to another place.

We know what happens when comment is made by counsel in respect of the delay which occurs.
There has been very considerable pressure for years on us in Parliament to see to it that a reasonable and proper outlook is taken of this very important work and that justices are not embarrassed by being told that they should be placed in a position in which they themselves have to pay for their subsistence, taking meals in some spot—shall we say a hotel or public house which provides meals?—whilst the clients before the court, to whom my hon. Friend referred, who are applying for liquor licences, can go off to the Savoy for a meal. I am not suggesting that magistrates should be sent to the Savoy or anywhere like that, but they have a right to a decent meal—and, in a sense, I do not see why they should not go to the Savoy, but I am not arguing for that.
The whole purpose of raising this matter tonight is to bring home to the House the importance of dealing with a certain amount of respect—when subsistence allowances are considered—with this very useful set of men and women who sacrifice themselves in the service of the public. Instead of feeling that it is an embarrassing hand-out and given without understanding of the position, they should know that they will not be put to this additional loss, which in many instances is considerable, apart entirely from any question of subsistence.
These people want to serve. They do serve, and they serve well. Rarely does one hear complaint. On the contrary, the Home Office and everybody concerned, certainly we as a nation, are indebted to them for the service they render. I hope that when the Joint Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, she will answer the points raised by my hon. Friend and will say that she will, if possible, ensure that something is done concerning the note that a justice is not entitled to subsistence if his or her duties are performed not more than three miles from his usual place of residence. I hope that, if necessary, the hon. Lady will undertake to introduce amending legislation speedily to remove the difficulty.
I gather that this provision was left in owing to an oversight. The House


of Commons and the House of Lords are just as much to blame as anybody for not having noticed that when the change was made from the old terms which were used about lodgings and the rest, a proviso was not included to remove the difficulty. However, there it is. It looks mean. It is mean.
A person who comes a distance of less than three miles is frequently put to much greater disadvantage than someone who comes four or five miles. People from a longer distance might come much more easily to court. In particular, this involves a deprivation for a large section of the magistracy, because a magistrate is supposed to live within the vicinity of his court. Consequently, in many cases people might be excluded. In London in particular, there is the difficulty of the tremendous amount of traffic. It is not a question of going as the crow flies. People who have to come through the London streets are frequently held up and their journeys can take a considerable time.
I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary does not want to leave the office which she occupies, perhaps even for a considerable time—I say no more than "perhaps"; I give her that much consideration—feeling that she has left a bad taste concerning a matter which affects, as the hon. Lady would be among the first to realise, those who serve us so well.

10.39 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike): The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) will, I am sure, appreciate that I do not wish to leave any bad taste in anybody's recollection of my tenure at the Home Office. I remind the hon. Member that I hope and believe that I shall be there for a considerable time.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was courteous in his apologies for bringing this matter forward at such short notice, but I am grateful that he has done so, because it will serve a useful purpose in allowing us to put straight for the record the substance of the Regulations.
I have listened carefully to the arguments that were put forward. I should probably be out of order if I followed

some of the complexities of the cooking difficulties of bachelors, or even of wives. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, whose wife gives valuable service in the London courts, speaks from experience. It would not be in order, and I do not think it would please Mr. Speaker, for me to start explaining the advantages of casserole cooking and so on, but we appreciate the difficulties that the hon. Members have brought forward. I assure the hon. Gentlemen that my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government who are both concerned in the matter, will have this drawn to their attention.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the Regulations. They are identical with the local authority Regulations. He also asked about travelling allowances. Again, the answer is that they remain the same as before. They are simply being consolidated. He also asked about the scope and content of them and what constitutes the duties of a justice for the purpose of claiming a subsistence allowance. There are a variety of duties, including, apart from sitting in court, attendance to the business of magistrates' courts committees and the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees, as well as attendance for the purpose of training, about which the hon. Gentleman was particularly concerned. All those things are covered.
I should for the record give a resume of these Regulations. The Justices Allowances Regulations, 1964, were made on 11th June, 1964, immediately the Administration of Justice Act, 1964, had been passed, because we were anxious that they should come into operation immediately. I think that anybody who listened to the debates during the Committee stage of that Measure would realise that we were all anxious to make subsistence allowances readily available under the powers which we now have under Section 8(3) of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, as amended by Section 31 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1964. Section 31 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1964, allowed the payment for the first time of subsistence allowances to justices and members of probation and case committees. It therefore became necessary to re-enact the existing Regulations


which dealt with travelling and lodging allowances to include the new rates of subsistence allowance.
Apart from restating the rates of travelling allowance, the Regulations provide rates of subsistence allowance identical with those already provided for local authority members under the Local Government Allowances to Members Regulations, 1954. If a justice is away from home for between four and eight hours in pursuance of his duties, he is entitled to claim a payment of 10s. to cover the cost of meals, and there are higher rates for longer periods of absence from home, culminating in a rate of 55s. for overnight absence. Subsistence is not payable if the duties are not performed more than three miles from the usual place of residence. The restriction applies to both subsistence allowance for justices and subsistence allowance for local authority members. This is laid down in Section 113 of the Local Government Act, 1948, as amended by the Public Authorities (Allowances) Act, 1961, and for justices it is contained in Section 8(3) of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, as amended by the Public Authorities (Allowances) Act, 1961, and the Administration of Justice Act, 1964.

Sir B. Janner: Would the hon. Lady tell us whether she is prepared to recommend that that provision should be altered?

Mr. Speaker: No, we cannot do that on the Regulations. The one thing that we cannot debate is proposals for amending the parent Statute.

Sir B. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not putting it forward in that particular way. I was putting it forward in the circumstance that if the hon. Lady was prepared to do this it might very much affect us in deciding whether we are prepared to accept the Regulations or any Regulations at all.

Mr. Speaker: That may well be, but under the rules of order we cannot discuss an amendment of the parent legislation on this Prayer.

Miss Pike: Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman, and be in order, to remind him that I said at the outset

that I would draw all these matters to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I am sure the hon. Member appreciates that that is as far as I can go tonight and, indeed, as far as I would be in order in going. But I will make sure that these matters are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends. I want now to finish stating the position for the record, for it will be useful for magistrates and others who are claiming if I state clearly the basis of these Regulations.
The Local Government Act, 1948, as amended by the Public Authorities (Allowances) Act, 1961, provides for a three mile limit in the Regulations applicable to local authority members which are made under these Statutes. Therefore, there is, of course, no difference in substance between the Justices Allowances Regulations and those which apply to local authority members. The three-mile limit applies in both cases.
That is the background of the substance of these Regulations. As I have said, we all welcome the fact that there is subsistence and we all wish to be as sympathetic as possible in this matter. The hon. Member for Widnes has done a useful service in bringing this subject forward tonight.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I think that the hon. Lady has gone as far as she possibly could, and possibly a little further than the rules of order really allowed. I have no desire to hold up the Regulations and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FARM, BORGAN (FORESTRY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

10.46 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the personal case of Mr. Thomas McWhirter, whose sheep farm at Borgan, near Newton Stewart, is due to be resumed by the Forestry Commission for planting, but at the same


time I am sorry to have to raise it for it will fan the embers of what has been a dying controversy about land utilisation between sheep farmers and foresters.
It is now generally accepted that there is a place for forestry alongside agriculture in all the upland districts of Scotland, and indeed forestry can be a most valuable new industry. Trees can be most beneficial when planted as shelter blocks and much ground which is virtually useless for farming can grow a valuable crop of timber. Latterly, there has been a major break-through in forestry practice, resulting from the draining of deep peat by caterpillar tractors.
This land can now grow a useful crop of spruce suitable for the pulp mills. It has also been found that trees will grow at a somewhat greater altitude than had previously been supposed. The result is that the reserve of potentially plantable land in Scotland has been greatly increased.
With these few introductory remarks, I come to the case of Mr. McWhirter, who owns the farm of Larg of Bargrennan. To give credit where it is due, this farm was sold to him by the Forestry Commission in I960, although, he had previously been tenant for many years.
Larg of Bargrennan is not an easy place to handle. It extends to 2,700 acres of hill at an altitude of 2,300 ft. and is thus somewhat high to plant. On its own, it carries a stock of 28 score of black faced sheep which, taking into account the extent of the farm, is too much for one man to handle, but it could not economically support two men.
Since 1947 Mr. McWhirter has been tenant of the neighbouring farm of Borgan, which extends to 1,200 acres of which 850 is plantable. Borgan is at a much lower altitude and is, therefore, a far more desirable farm than Larg. Together, the two farms make a fully economic holding, carrying a stock of 42½ score of black faced sheep and 35 hill cows and employing Mr. McWhirter and a shepherd. They give ample employment to Mr. McWhirter and a shepherd. The combined holding is undoubtedly an excellent sheep farm.
Over the last few years wedder and ewe lambs straight from the hills have sold for an average of about £5 5s. Selected ram lambs have figured promin-

ently at the Newton Stewart and Castle Douglas sales, often making £500 each and on occasion as much as £1,000. The Under-Secretary will perhaps agree that the hallmark of a good sheep farm, however, is the price of cast ewes. In the last six years they have topped the sale at Newton Stewart twice and been second four times. To put it bluntly, here is one of the best sheep farms in the Newton Stewart district scheduled for planting.
Who advises the Secretary of State on these questions of planned land use? Is there an impartial panel or committee in St. Andrew's House to which Mr. McWhirter can appeal, or is the decision final because the Forestry Commission bought this land for planting before the last war when conditions were entirely different? I hope that the Under-Secretary will clear up this point which is worrying many people in Galloway. We have come a long way since, centuries ago, a landowner could use his land as he willed. It has become increasingly accepted that land use must be planned, whether for housing development or anything else, in the best interests of the country.
If Borgan was excluded from the rest of the planting in Glentrool Forest of which it forms the boundary, the Water of Minnoch would form an excellent fire break. The Forestry Commission would use 850 acres of plantable land which would be reduced to 670 acres as Mr. McWhirter has freely offered 180 acres of other land for planting. Some 350 acres of Borgan are not fit for planting and they are likely to be sterilised in the category of unplantable land of which far too much is held by the Commission in Scotland already.
Is 670 acres so importont to the Forestry Commission? At 30th September, 1963, its plantable land reserve in Scotland was 166,719 acres and in Glentrool Forest alone, 7,298. In the same Newton Stewart area a very substantial acreage of plantable land is yearly becoming available for planting as cooperation between the sheep farmers and the Forestry Commission increases. I refer to such recent schemes as the planting of the Moss of Cree and Knockishee. Is it worth the while of the Commission to jeopardise this co-operation by insisting on its legal rights to destroy this excellent sheep farm? I ask the Under-Secretary to look into this case personally


before he agrees to the Commission's proposal.

10.54 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. A. Stodart): No one could have presented the case of a constituent more painstakingly than has my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). If it is any consolation, I say to him here and now that I have already, I hope with equal painstaking, reviewed this case personally as he expressed the hope that I should do. I very much welcome the chance of explaining to him and to the House the reason for my right hon. Friend's decison in the case of the farm at Borgan.
Forestry has long been a part of the Scottish scene and its extension since the war has provided, is still providing and will continue to provide more jobs in the rural areas and now a vast new industry in the Highlands. I think that my hon. Friend and all of us accept this. Where he and I fall out is whether the farm at Borgan should play its part in this. He thinks not, and it is my duty to try to convince hon. Members that it should.
Borgan Farm was acquired by the Forestry Commission in 1939. It marches with the farm of Larg, which also plays a part in this narrative. About 1950 a further area of land extending to some 11,500 acres was sold to the Secretary of State for forestry. This area included the farm of Larg, which had been tenanted by Mr. McWhirter under its previous owner since 1947. Mr. McWhirter's tenancy of Borgan from the Forestry Commission had also dated from then. Thus, in 1947 we have Mr. McWhirter renting two farms, one from the Forestry Commission. In 1961 he bought one of them, namely Larg. But it is with Borgan that we are most concerned.
Mr. McWhirter tenanted Borgan farm from 1947 until the expiry of his notice to quit at Whit Sunday, 1964. The lease in his favour was for a period of 14 years from Whit Sunday, 1947, until Whit Sunday, 1961. It was continued beyond this last date by tacit relocation.
The lease provided for mutual breaks at Whit Sunday, 1952, and again at

Whit Sunday, 1957, and contained the following clause:
In respect that the lands hereby let have been acquired by the Proprietor for the purpose of performing their statutory duties and powers under the Forestry Act, 1919, and subsequent Acts amending or extending the said Act and are intended to be utilised for these purposes in due course. …
In 1946 and again in 1947 the Department of Agriculture reviewed properties which had been acquired, or, to use a good Scottish word, feued, by the Forestry Commission before the passing of the Forestry Act, 1945. The Department then agreed that Borgan should be planted. In August, 1961, Mr. McWhirter indicated to the Department of Agriculture that he would like to have an opportunity to buy Borgan and he was immediately told that the Forestry Commission did not wish to sell this farm but that they intended to carry out their original plan of planting. As Borgan was being managed by the Department of Agriculture on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Department issued Mr. McWhirter with a notice to quit on 10th May, 1963, and that notice took effect at Whitsun of this year.
I have gone into rather a lot of detail because I am most anxious to establish that Mr. McWhirter can at no time have been unaware of the future which was planned for Borgan. It is true that in January of this year Mr. McWhirter made an offer to the Forestry Commission of 180 acres of land, half of which was in Borgan and half in Larg. This particular area would be very expensive to fence and plant, and road work alone would cost about £60 an acre. The Commission felt bound to decline it and, in any case, this area would have been an altogether inadequate substitute for the 850 plantable acres at Borgan.
I wish to make it clear that we have all along recognised Mr. McWhirter's ability—and here I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend—as a sheep farmer. It is quite outstanding and his name is famous far beyond the boundaries of Galloway. So is his sheep stock. I believe that Larg by itself, the farm of which Mr. McWhirter is the owner-occupier, could be made a viable unit. Obviously his hill farming activities in this district would have to be on a somewhat smaller scale, but I believe that Larg by itself, which is a thoroughly good sheep farm, could provide a full


livelihood to a working farmer. It has some high ground at its eastern end, but it does have a substantial carry of hill sheep and cattle. I gather that it has about 40 beef cows.
It has been suggested that the arrangements which resulted in the decision to plant Borgan are defective since there is no impartial and informed body to hold the balance fairly between forestry, in particular the Forestry Commission, and the farmer. The suggestion is that all we do is listen to the Forestry Commission and give it more or less all it wants. That is very far from the truth, and I shall not be surprised if, in the debate which will take place next week, certain hon. Members say that it is the Forestry Commission which does not get its fair share.
Responsibility for the proper allocation of land between farming and forestry—or, as I prefer to put it, for the proper integration of farming and forestry—rests in the last resort with the Secretary of State, who takes his decision only after receiving the views of all his advisers. The procedure for reconciling the interests of agriculture and forestry involves the reference by the Commission to the Department of Agriculture of any proposals it may have for securing land for planting as soon as it can submit them, with an indication of the extent to which it would regard the land as suitable for the planting of trees. The Department then examines the area to assess its agricultural quality and potential, the standard of current husbandry and, in the light of these, it assesses how much land could be set apart for forestry generally with the aim of leaving a reasonably economic agricultural unit.
In some cases, of course, the choice lies between retention in agriculture entirely or allocation to forestry absolutely. The position is then the subject of discussion between the Department and the Commission, the Department's main interest—a perfectly natural one—being to safeguard, to a reasonable extent, the agricultural use of the land, while the Commission's aim—again, quite naturally—is to obtain the largest amount of plantable ground. In the event of any unresolved difference between the Department and the Commission, the matter is referred to Ministers for decision.
My hon. Friend has said that there are 166,000 acres in reserve in Scotland. He suggests that this is quite enough to support a planting programme of about 30,000 acres a year. In fact, a reserve of five times is by no means too much for economic working and forward planning. Much of the land is tenanted, labour is not readily available for some of it—and will not be so until houses are built—and with a smaller reserve the problem of redundancy might arise in later years, and so on.
But, in any case, what we must look at here is the reserve in the neighbourhood, and I say this to make it clear that a reserve of land in, shall we say, Argyll does not particularly help planting in Kirkcudbright. But planting programmes in the Glentrool area is 1,300 acres for next year, and will run down to about 900 acres in 1968, after which, unless the Commission can lay its hands on more land, there will be only 450 acres left. The reserves of plantable land already take into account the developments in techniques and machinery that have gradually evolved since the war and have made it possible for the Forestry Commission to plant in deep peat, and at higher altitudes than were thought possible some years ago.
There will always be room for argument about the wisdom and justice of decisions of this kind because, after all, they are matters of judgment, but I would ask my hon. Friend to believe that my right hon. Friend and I myself have considered as fairly and impartially as we can the arguments on both sides. The Commission needs land for planting, but my right hon. Friend will wish to be satisfied that it is land which, in the national interest, will be put to better use under trees. That is the criterion that he has observed in this case; he has taken into account both the need for planting and the interest of agriculture—which include the interests of the tenant.
If one takes into consideration the large areas which the Commission has secured in the Glentrool district, there have been remarkably few complaints—and this is a point on which my hon. Friend rightly touched—by the farming community. No one could be more anxious than I that the best of relations should exist between farming and


forestry, but a mutual respect for agreements and conditions accepted between parties must be the foundation of good relations and trust in this as in any other sphere.
I have quoted the clause in Mr. McWhirter's lease to the effect that the Forestry Commission had acquired Borgan for the purpose of carrying out its statutory duties, and I cannot believe that Mr. McWhirter ever had any grounds for believing that the Commission did not intend to use the land for the purpose which was explicitly stated in the lease, and accepted by Mr. McWhirter as a party to it. I believe profoundly that the absolute foundation

of confidence, trust and good relations between farmers and foresters lies in the faithful observance of understandings. Accordingly, although I have listened carefully to all that has been said by my hon. Friend tonight it would be, quite frankly, dishonest of me if I did not say here and now that my hon. Friend has not managed to convince me that the decision which has been arrived at in this case should be reversed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.